MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

Double Taxation Relief

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
	I have received your addresses praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Chile) Order 2003, and the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Australia) Order 2003 be made in the form of the drafts laid before your House on 8 September 2003.
	I will comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

The Secretary of State was asked—

Green Spaces

Nick Palmer: What action his Department is taking to increase access to green spaces in urban areas.

Yvette Cooper: Parks and green spaces make a big difference to local communities. For too many years, they were left to decline. That is why the Government are investing £200 million over the next three years to regenerate local parks and green spaces in towns and cities across the country.

Nick Palmer: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reply, but although overall spending is no doubt helpful, is there a concrete way in which local groups can apply for support? Often, local groups know what is most needed.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right—often, community groups, including bodies such as Friends of the Parks, are vital to the regeneration of local parks and green spaces. They can apply for the living spaces fund, which will provide £30 million to support about 1,500 projects over the next three years, because we think it right that community groups as well as local authorities should benefit from more support to improve green spaces.

Alistair Burt: Does the Minister agree that her Department is being even more successful in the policy of increasing access to urban areas in green spaces by demolishing large parts of the north in order to concrete over more of the south-east?

Yvette Cooper: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is complete nonsense. I am sorry that his party is so little concerned about parks and green spaces. I checked the record of the shadow junior Ministers' interest in parks: they have referred to parks 56 times; unfortunately, 33 of those references were to car parks.

Local Government Reorganisation

David Chaytor: If he will make a statement on the boundary committee's timetable for publishing local government reorganisation proposals, consequent on the establishment of regional government.

Nick Raynsford: The boundary committee will publish draft recommendations for consultation on 1 December and is required to make its final recommendations no later than 25 May 2004.

David Chaytor: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that where there is no consensus on the future shape of local government—as is the case in east Lancashire, for example—it is crucial that the boundary committee place before the electorate all the serious and practical options for the future shape of district councils? Furthermore, will he assure the House that the consultation will be genuine and that the committee will listen carefully to all representations made?

Nick Raynsford: I assure my hon. Friend that the matter is one for the boundary committee and that we have made it clear in our guidance to the committee that we expect it to review the options for achieving the best form of unitary local government and to produce options on which decisions can be made by the people in the referendum.

Bernard Jenkin: First, let me say what a pleasure it is to find myself once again doing battle opposite the Minister. I seem to remember that we last tangled on the Transport Bill. Since that legislation passed, the railways have deteriorated and National Air Traffic Services has proved to be a disaster. Does he think that regional assemblies will be as successful as the railways and NATS were under his leadership?
	Will the Minister explain how much regional assemblies will cost? We are having boundary reviews to establish regional government, yet the cost in London is three times what was expected, and that cost is being passed straight back to the council tax payer through record increases in council tax. That does not augur well for the popularity of the right hon. Gentleman's policy.

Nick Raynsford: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position, and look forward to debating these issues. I am sure that he will have a fertile discussion with the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who is now the shadow Secretary of State and who in a speech in York on 29 September 2001 said:
	"There is much more of a case"—
	for regional government—
	"than we allowed in the 1980s . . . The only way of restoring representative government in relation to a wide range of functions carried out by the central government is at the regional level."
	I am delighted to know that the hon. Gentleman is part of a team and answering to a shadow Secretary of State who clearly supports the concept of regional government.
	The hon. Gentleman knows that we have spelt out in the White Paper our estimates on costs. The people will decide in the referendum whether our proposals will, as we believe, deliver good value for money and restore democracy to the regions.

Eric Martlew: It is all very well to talk about regional government and changing unitary authorities. The law provides that county boundaries can be crossed. Will my right hon. Friend explain how that will appear on the ballot paper? There is great confusion in my area, including Cumberland and Morecambe bay. We do not understand how people will be able to vote on the issue.

Nick Raynsford: The boundary committee will make proposals on precisely that matter in two weeks' time. It will be entirely appropriate for people to have information about the proposed changes, their impact and the options available before they decide. When I was in Cumbria a while back talking to representatives of local government, it was clear to me that there were two or three clearly held views on what would be the best options. It was recognised that there were appropriate boundaries reflecting natural communities that could make good new boundaries for unitary authorities in those areas. I am sure that these matters will be decided properly by the people when they come to vote in the referendum on these matters.

Edward Davey: Will the Minister confirm that it is thanks to a Liberal Democrat amendment that local people will have both the choice and a vote on local government reorganisation? Will he reaffirm his previous commitment that the Government will publish a draft powers Bill before any referendums on regional assemblies? Will he confirm that the Government are considering devolving more power to future regional assemblies than was contained in the White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice"?

Nick Raynsford: I am pleased that we saw eye to eye with the hon. Gentleman's party over the benefit both of giving the option of regional government and of giving a choice to local communities on unitary local government. The proposals for the powers of elected regional assemblies are spelt out in the White Paper. We have already demonstrated through the fire White Paper that we are prepared to change such arrangements in appropriate circumstances. We believe that it is right to go forward on the basis that we will be giving people more option to shape their future in the regions where they choose to do that.

Neighbourhood Wardens

Candy Atherton: If he will make a statement on the work of neighbourhood wardens.

John Prescott: Neighbourhood wardens can play a vital role in the revitalisation of some of our most challenging neighbourhoods. Neighbourhood renewal funding is supporting some 500 warden schemes across the country, and other forms of funding have provided up to 3,000 wardens. That is why I announced on 14 August the extension of funding to all street warden schemes for one extra year. Wardens have been welcomed by the communities in which they work. They are successful and they have proven to be effective in reducing crime and improving community safety and the local environment.

Candy Atherton: I thank my right hon. Friend. He is a good friend of Cornwall and a regular visitor. When he next comes to Cornwall, will he visit and congratulate the Redruth street wardens, who have recently received national acclaim, and perhaps bring some more money to this incredibly popular scheme?

John Prescott: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. I certainly enjoy visiting Cornwall on my regional visits from time to time. I am pleased that, in her constituency, the North Kerrier warden scheme received an award for its work that was presented by my hon. Friend. Last night, I attended the British Urban Regeneration Association—BURA—awards, at which the Falmouth Beacon regeneration partnership was given the sustainability award. The House will be interested to know that a community getting together was able to reduce house burglaries by 40 per cent., reduce accidents involving children by 50 per cent., reduce asthma and chest complaints, improve education results and achieve a £180,000 fuel saving from energy efficiency. It shows that when members of a community get together, they can make a real difference.

Angela Watkinson: The London borough of Havering has a highly successful neighbourhood wardens scheme, which is coming to the end of its third year. I believe that I just heard the Deputy Prime Minister say that an additional year's funding has been allowed. When the Government funding comes to an end, hard-pressed councils such as Havering have the choice of putting up the council tax or withdrawing the service. What would the Deputy Prime Minister advise them to do?

John Prescott: The hon. Lady posed a fair question. On 14 August we decided to extend the programme by one year. The programme arose from the social exclusion unit's recommendation and was to be temporary, for one year. It has been so successful that we have extended it, but the intention is to feed it into mainstream departmental expenditure. So far, 60 per cent. of councils have achieved that, and we are negotiating with the rest. It is a successful scheme and we shall do all we can to make sure that the funding is continued.

Rob Marris: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Jess Pickard and his neighbourhood warden team in my constituency on contributing to a very creditable drop in crime and antisocial behaviour and in hoping that that valuable work will continue?

John Prescott: Yes. I can guarantee that the work will continue. My hon. Friend has shown that wardens in his area have made a real difference. Without giving all the figures again, I can report that in one area burglary was reduced by 90 per cent. That is a result of the ordinary community getting together and doing something itself. The programme has turned out to be extremely successful, and my hon. Friend can be assured that I shall do everything to see that it is maintained.

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (Sussex)

Tim Loughton: What his policy is on building on and around areas of outstanding natural beauty in Sussex.

Keith Hill: Planning policies and development control decisions affecting areas of outstanding natural beauty should favour conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape. In all cases, the environmental effects of new proposals will be a major consideration, although it will also be appropriate to have regard to the economic and social well-being of the areas and their communities, including the provision of adequate housing to meet identified local needs.

Tim Loughton: As the Minister knows, building land for houses in the coastal strip of Sussex is in short supply, wedged as we are between the sea and the downs. Many speculative development proposals are going through on appeal for building on the ribbon of land right up to the downs, adjacent to AONB land. Is he aware that the position will be made worse if the national park designation of the south downs goes through, and the AONB status of areas that fall just outside the national park boundary is revoked? What will he do to make sure that those vulnerable green areas are not concreted over in short order?

Keith Hill: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the matter, but I hope to be able to reassure him. The national park will become the planning authority, should the proposal go through, and it will acquire jurisdiction over planning applications from the local planning authorities whose areas include areas of outstanding natural beauty. Of course, local planning authorities are already constrained in their planning policies by the rigorous standards applied to planning applications in areas of outstanding natural beauty. To that extent, the position should not be changed by the national park proposal.

Nicholas Soames: The right hon. Gentleman knows well the difficulties that exist in West Sussex, with the number of new houses that have been imposed on the county by the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Minister reconsider the extraordinary number of new houses that West Sussex is being asked to accept, and will he have regard to the fact that these developments are wholly unsustainable by his own definition of sustainability? What will he do to reduce the number?

Keith Hill: The Government are in regular discussion and negotiation with local authorities on these matters, but the hon. Gentleman must bear it in mind that London and the wider south-east constitute the motor of the economy. The housing growth that the Government anticipate responds very much to indigenous growth in housing demand, as well as inward migration factors.

Domestic Violence

Kali Mountford: If he will make a statement on the role of local government in tackling domestic violence.

Phil Hope: The Government are wholly committed to tackling domestic violence. Such violence is first and foremost a crime, and stopping it and bringing perpetrators to justice are the overriding priority. Local government has a critical role in tackling domestic violence through the delivery of housing and social services, community safety and crime reduction partnerships.

Kali Mountford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer, in which he pointed out the role of local government in partnership with other organisations. Will he do all that he can to encourage local authorities to invest more in security in the home so that families and children can stay safe in the communities and schools that they are used to, rather than having to be moved on, away from the violent perpetrator of a dreadful crime?

Phil Hope: I place on record our appreciation and recognition of my hon. Friend's tremendous work in championing the interests of victims of domestic violence. She is right that domestic violence can be a significant cause of homelessness, and we need better co-ordination between local agencies so that women can safely stay in their own homes if they undergo such experiences. This year, the Government published our strategy on domestic violence, which emphasises the importance of preventing such violence, supporting victims and bringing offenders to justice. I am pleased to say that a new telephone helpline, which the Prime Minister announced last year, is on track to become fully operational next month.

Jenny Tonge: The Minister may have seen a disturbing report on television late last night about children being forced by the courts to visit perpetrators of domestic violence after divorce has taken place. Will he assure the House that the Government will look into this problem and advise the family courts accordingly?

Phil Hope: The hon. Lady raises a difficult and sensitive issue in family relationships. We have a problem in that domestic violence affects not only women, the main victims, but children in those households. The Green Paper recently published by my right hon. Friend spells out a range of measures to provide greater protection for children to secure their safety inside and outside the home and to ensure that local agencies work together much more closely through new agencies such as children's trusts to make sure that children receive the support and help that they need if they ever experience such tragic events.

Debra Shipley: May I invite my hon. Friend to the annual general meeting on domestic violence this afternoon? I impress on him the fact that several hundred people will be there. Will he explain more fully the support services provided for children in particular? I suggest to him that they are lacking for children in domestic violence situations either in the home or in hostels, where very little support is provided. The Green Paper also lacks a voice on that issue.

Phil Hope: My hon. Friend is well known in the House for championing the cause of children and giving them support. She is right to point out the physical, emotional and psychological impact on children of growing up and living in a family where there is domestic violence. I shall try to get to this afternoon's conference, diary permitting. What we need to do through the Green Paper is identify specific action that the Government and local agencies can take through the new children's trusts to ensure that children's needs are paramount and are put first when we make decisions on resources and needs.

Housing

Bob Spink: If he will make a statement on using pathfinders in providing housing.

John Prescott: Nine market renewal pathfinders have been set up in the north and the midlands to tackle the problem of low demand and abandonment. The pathfinders will rebuild thriving housing markets in those areas, and we have allocated £500 million over the next three years to fund this ambitious programme.

Bob Spink: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's intentions in respect of pathfinders. The initiative should help to reduce the pressure to build more and more houses in the south-east, which he is forcing on constituents in already overdeveloped areas. But throwing more money at the problem will not solve it; we have got to get tough and tackle antisocial behaviour in those areas, to increase and strengthen private buyer confidence.

John Prescott: The hon. Gentleman is right: through the pathfinders, we are doing a great deal in the north to deal with areas that are in massive decline. But I believe that people in the south have a right to live there if they so wish, and that there are sufficient resources, such as land, to provide for that. We have already established a programme to deal with antisocial behaviour. Is he saying that the £96 million that we have just awarded to south-east Essex and to his own constituency is unacceptable? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I should point out that it is far too noisy in the Chamber. It is unfair.

Gordon Prentice: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one tenth of all properties in east Lancashire are empty or abandoned, that there are properties in my area that cannot be given away, and that last year, 2,500 properties were sold for less than £20,000, which is more than in any other pathfinder? What we in east Lancashire want is not endless strategies but the resources that we need to do something about a housing problem that has been festering for decades.

John Prescott: I certainly do not disagree with my hon. Friend's analysis, but the £500 million that we are giving to pathfinder areas is a unique sum that should be welcomed. It doubtless will not meet all the problems in all such areas, but we are attempting to find new solutions to these different and difficult problems. We are on the way, and several pathfinders have already been developed. They are being turned from strategies into reality, and my hon. Friend should perhaps welcome that.

David Curry: May I say to the right hon. Gentleman how flattered I am that such an early reference was made to my speeches? I should hate him to waste civil service or political adviser time; if he would simply like to get in touch with me, I will make sure that he gets them free, gratis and for nothing.
	The pathfinders are good projects run by good people, but it is necessary to ensure that there is effective private sector investment. This is not just a housing programme; it is housing-led. In east Lancashire, employers have walked away. What joined-up government are we going to get to make sure that we bring back employment and economic opportunities, so that housing projects are part of a broad strategy of regeneration and do not simply hang on their own?

John Prescott: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new job as shadow Secretary of State for his new cabinet. Apparently, there are seven shadow Secretaries of State within his own group, which seems to be another shadow phantom cabinet, in addition to the one designed by the Leader of the Opposition. I welcome his saying that we should not waste the civil service's time, but perhaps he should have a word with the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), who has asked 31 questions on subjects such as the money I have spent on drinking water, expenditure on horticulture and gardens, and what I am doing about pest control. I do my best to control the Opposition, but perhaps he should reduce the number of such questions.
	To be serious, the right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and we are addressing that issue. The programmes are not just housing programmes; they recognise that there must be a partnership with the private sector. Increasing the value of the houses in that area is an important change that we need to make, working with the public and private sectors. Creating a sustainable community means dealing with jobs as well. We are putting those two elements together, and having some success.

David Curry: When the hapless and unhappy Minister for Sport and Tourism introduced the Bill on regional development agencies, he said that the Government would be judged by whether there was a closing of the regional economic imbalance. Does the Deputy Prime Minister believe that the communities plan in the south-east, however necessary, will contribute to closing the economic balance between the south-east and the northern regions, or to widening it?

John Prescott: Regional development agencies are important in developing prosperity in all regions; that is why, unlike the previous Administration, we did not limit them to certain regions. We said that all regions need RDAs to develop their indigenous assets and increase prosperity. Since we increased the number of RDAs, there has been a considerable increase in prosperity in northern areas. I recognise that there is a growing differential, but all areas are far better off. Unless he is prepared to change his proposal to abolish RDAs, things will get worse.

Peter Pike: My right hon. Friend will know from his visits to Burnley that the problem of empty houses in Burnley in east Lancashire is, in percentage terms, worse than in any of the other district councils. He will know that Elevate is putting together its bid under the housing renewal pathfinder project. He will also know that, to regenerate those areas and to make them attractive areas in which to live, that bid addresses not only the need to demolish houses but the key problems to which he has referred. Will he assure me that he will give a positive answer to that, so that work on the ground can commence at the earliest possible date?

John Prescott: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. We certainly are doing that. I have visited his area where houses were being sold for about £1,000 each. It is the collapse of the private market that has created great difficulties for us. We are trying to regenerate the area, the houses and the communities. In some cases, we will have to demolish but in others we can rebuild. Different experiments and changes are under way.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Philip Hammond: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 19 November.

Tony Blair: Before I list my engagements for the day, I am sure that the whole House would want to join me in expressing our deep condolences to the Turkish Government and to the families of those who were killed in the terrorist atrocities in Istanbul last Saturday, and also to the families of the 17 US soldiers who lost their lives in the tragedy involving two Black Hawk helicopters in Iraq at the weekend.
	This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Philip Hammond: I thank the Prime Minister for his answer and I hope that worrying about what is going on here in his absence will not spoil his enjoyment of the banquet tonight.
	Will the Prime Minister tell the House what the point is of deploying 14,000 police officers on the streets and creating an air exclusion zone over London if he cannot even guarantee the security of the President in his own bedroom?

Tony Blair: First, the hon. Gentleman is wrong on the numbers of police being deployed, but it is important that we pay tribute to the work that the Metropolitan police do for us day in, day out. In respect of the incident at the palace, I know that the Home Secretary will make a statement on that later. I think that it is important that we establish the facts first.

Gwyn Prosser: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour Government's new tonnage tax reforms have been of huge benefit to British shipping in general and to the P&O shipping group in particular? How does he reconcile that big boost for British shipping with the relatively small number of seafarers' jobs created and with yesterday's devastating news that Jeffrey Sterling wants to sack 600 people from cross-channel ferries in his P&O fleet at Dover? Does my right hon. Friend share my sickening feeling of déjà vu?

Tony Blair: It is important, as my hon. Friend rightly acknowledges, that we are seeing a continual revival in UK merchant shipping after a very long period of decline. That is immensely welcome. Obviously, I regret very much the announcement of redundancies at P&O ferries, which I understand is connected with a decline in demand on the Dover to Calais route. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are in discussion with the company and we will do anything we can through the rapid response service to make sure that anyone who is made redundant is found alternative employment. I can say from the experience in my own constituency that where that service has been deployed it has been immensely successful.

Michael Howard: Once again, I sadly join the Prime Minister in expressing my condolences on behalf of my party to the victims of both the atrocities to which he referred.
	On the Conservative Benches, we join the Prime Minister in warmly welcoming President Bush to this country. Indeed, it is good to see that the President is so popular on the Government side that Labour MPs have flown back from all over the world, from as far away as Australia, so that they can be in London today to welcome the President in person.
	May I congratulate the Prime Minister on the closeness of his relationship with the President? Does he share my view that a strong and close relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States is in the interest of both our countries and of the world as a whole?

Tony Blair: I assume that we have just seen the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his statesmanlike mode. I am sure that everyone who has the best interests of this country at heart recognises that the strength of the alliance between Britain and the United States of America is important for world peace and security, and for the future of both our countries.

Michael Howard: I very much welcome the Prime Minister's response. However, how can he support as his party's candidate for London Mayor someone who said this week that the President was
	"the greatest threat to life on this planet that we've most probably ever seen"?

Tony Blair: I did say that we had just seen the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his statesman-like mode—[Hon. Members: "Answer."] He cannot resist—[Interruption.] He cannot get to his feet and say that it is a good thing that the President is here and that the alliance is good for our country without trying to make mischief out of it. However, there will be people—in my party and elsewhere—who oppose what the President of the United States has done. I happen not to be one of them. Instead of making mischief, perhaps this should be the time when both the Leader of the Opposition and I stand firm in support of the alliance between this country and America.

Anne Campbell: When my right hon. Friend meets President Bush later this week, will he ask him to put all possible pressure on the Israeli Government to stop building the security wall, and to reunite the Palestinian people with their ancestral lands?

Tony Blair: First, I can tell my hon. Friend that we hope very much that the President will again give his strong support to the middle east peace process, and to the need to develop a process that will allow us, ultimately, to have an Israeli state that is confident of its security and an independent, viable Palestinian state. That is what we will work towards. Obviously, any measure being taken at the moment that inhibits those developments is not good for the long-term future of that process. In the end, however, the process in the middle east will not succeed until there is the clearest possible security plan that allows us to make sure that the terrorism also stops, so that we can create the confidence in which Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) for her question. I think that she is right to stress the importance of the matter, but I do not believe that there will be proper progress in the middle east until we resolve the security situation. We have to do that because, in the end, it is in the interests of the Palestinians as well as of the Israelis.

Charles Kennedy: Will the Prime Minister give the House some sense of which issue he is more hopeful of making progress on during his discussions with President Bush this week? Will it be the continuing detention without trial of British citizens at Camp Delta, or the illegal imposition of tariffs against our steel industry by the Americans?

Tony Blair: Our position on both matters is very clear, and we will discuss them again. I have set out our position regarding those detained at Guantanamo Bay to the right hon. Gentleman on many occasions. In respect of steel, there is a disagreement between Britain and Europe on the one hand, and America on the other. We want that to be resolved, and hope that the Americans will abide by the World Trade Organisation ruling. It is important that they do.
	Of course there may be difficult issues between Britain and America, but I would have hoped that, when the right hon. Gentleman got to his feet, he would also say how pleased he was that the alliance between our two countries was so strong. Ultimately, that is in the interests of both countries. Yes, there is a trade issue between us over steel tariffs, but let us be clear: the trade between our countries is worth something like $2,000 million. That goes on the whole time, and is of enormous benefit to both nations.

Charles Kennedy: A good constructive alliance between the UK and the US is, of course, in everyone's interest, but I want to press the Prime Minister on the most testing aspect of the alliance at the moment—the revised American position in respect of Iraq. Will he assure the House that, when he discusses that with the President over the next couple of days, the British priority will remain the establishment of democratic and durable institutions in Iraq? Will he also ensure that that matter is not being driven by the domestic electoral timetable in Washington?

Tony Blair: I do find that a remarkable question to ask me. We have been working very closely with the United States of America to ensure that two things happen: first, that we get a programme for proper, democratic accountability and elections in Iraq, which will enable the Iraqis to be governing their country by the middle of next year, in due course with a proper constitution and elections. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman recognises that none of that would be possible if Saddam Hussein had not been deposed from the Government of Iraq. Secondly, we will carry on working with the Americans in the fight against international terrorism.
	Let us be clear about what is happening out in Iraq. The people bombing the United Nations and the Red Cross and killing ordinary Iraqis, the people who, when we proposed an independent judiciary for Iraq, assassinated two of the people who were nominated as judges, and those who are killing people in Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other parts of the world in these appalling acts of terrorism are not the British or the Americans but appalling terrorists linked to some of these appalling regimes. It really is about time that we started to realise who our allies are, who our enemies are, and to stick with the one and fight the other.

David Cairns: Despite the fact that unemployment in my constituency is now around 6 per cent. compared with 25 per cent. in the mid-1980s, does my right hon. Friend agree that more needs to be done to tackle the problems of hidden unemployment, particularly those affecting people who have been left languishing on incapacity benefit for many years? To that end, will he ensure that the pathways to work pilot programmes that are being run in Inverclyde are properly resourced and structured so that everyone is helped to find a job and never again do we hear the excuse that unemployment is a price worth paying?

Tony Blair: I can assure my hon. Friend that we will resource the pilot projects satisfactorily. Indeed, as he rightly points out, many people have been helped off benefit and into work, in particular by the new deal. It is an absolute outrage that the Conservative party is committed to abolishing the new deal, which has helped hundreds of thousands of people off the dole and into work. Overall, about 1.5 million extra jobs have been created in the British economy since 1997 and that compares with the figure when a certain person was Employment Secretary for the Conservatives, with 3 million unemployed, and 1 million extra under him alone.

Stephen O'Brien: From the figures on the Government's website of total permanent staff on a full-time equivalent basis in the Department of Trade and Industry, including its agencies, the Government inherited staff numbers of 8,398 in 1997. A staggering 1,422 staff have been added in the six and a half years under the Prime Minister's watch. As the right hon. Gentleman and his Chancellor now declare 500 of those jobs redundant, as reported in The Times on Monday, does the Prime Minister agree with the arithmetic that that still leaves 922 jobs over the number inherited? Is it any wonder that business is fed up with the waste and inefficiency of government under this Prime Minister?

Tony Blair: Business welcomes the economic stability that has been achieved under this Government. It welcomes the low inflation, low interest rates, low unemployment and high levels of employment. It welcomes the fact that we have been through the recent downturn better than any other country in the G8. I think that business remembers, too, that when a certain Opposition party was in power, it had 15 per cent. interest rates, 3 million unemployed and double-digit inflation. [Interruption.] Perhaps when the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) gets to his feet, he will apologise for that record, since he was the author of it.

Alice Mahon: Since the invasion of Iraq, how many weapons of mass destruction have been found?

Tony Blair: As my hon. Friend knows, the Iraqi survey group is in Iraq. It has already produced an interim report, which details at least 10 to 12 breaches of United Nations resolutions. I simply point out, in respect of the UN resolution that was passed last November, that it was a matter of common cause with all countries that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the world. I believe that he does. I also believe that the intelligence that we have received on this matter is right. The Iraqi survey group should be allowed to continue and complete its work.

Michael Howard: Does the Prime Minister think that it says something about his Administration that even after the Minister for Children's humiliating climbdown this week, he still thinks that she is the best person for the job?

Tony Blair: I think she is. If we look at the Minister's record on child care places, if we look at the extra investment that is going into nursery education for three and four-year-olds and if we look at the plaudits given her by many people working in the field, I believe that, yes, she is the person who is best for the job, and she has answered properly the claims that have been made against her.

Michael Howard: Let us just be clear about what happened. The Minister used the full authority of her Government position to write to the chairman of the BBC to try to suppress an investigation into her conduct. In doing so, she falsely described a victim of child abuse as an "extremely disturbed person". Is it right that someone who tried to bully her way out of trouble should still be Minister for Children?

Tony Blair: I do not agree with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said and I am sorry that he has joined in what I regard as a wholly unfair campaign against the Minister concerned. She has apologised to the particular individual. She was entitled to raise issues given that she was the subject of such criticism and, as I said, I believe that it is important to look at her record not merely as the present Minister for Children but previously as children's Minister, when by common consent she did an excellent job protecting and advancing the interests of children. I would have thought it better, rather than simply discussing the individual Minister, that we discuss the policies of the two parties.

Michael Howard: No.

Tony Blair: Oh yes. I understand entirely why the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not want to do so; the Minister for Children has made the case for extra investment in child care that is yielding better child care throughout our country, and of course when he was shadow Chancellor he voted against every part of that extra investment.

Michael Howard: Is the Prime Minister suggesting that this is not a matter on which he should be held to account? He may care about vulnerable Ministers—we care about vulnerable children. [Interruption.] Is not it the case that the Government always bully people who get in their way? The 94-year-old Rose Addis, lying on her hospital bed, was described as a racist. [Interruption.] Martin Sixsmith was described as money grubbing and unfit to be a civil servant.

Chris Ruane: Derek Lewis?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Ruane must not shout—it is quite a habit that he is getting into.

Michael Howard: It is not surprising that Labour Members do not want to hear, Mr. Speaker.
	Dr. David Kelly was denigrated by the Prime Minister's office as a Walter Mitty character, and now a victim of child abuse is smeared by the Minister for Children. Is the Prime Minister proud of that pattern of behaviour? Has he lost all sense of shame?

Tony Blair: Now we see the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his true colours. If he wants to talk about vulnerable children, let us have a look at the record of the two Governments on vulnerable children. Let us remember that when he was a Cabinet Minister in the previous Government the number of children in poverty trebled—[Interruption.] Yes, they were vulnerable children when the Conservatives were in power. When one in five households in this country had no one working, was not that bad for children? When investment in education was cut under the last Government, what did that do for vulnerable children? When the right hon. and learned Gentleman voted against increases in child benefit, what did that do for vulnerable children?
	We know where—

Hon. Members: Hypocrite.

Mr. Speaker: Order. An unfortunate remark was made. The word "hypocrite" was used. Will it be withdrawn?

Keith Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw.

Hon. Members: Disgraceful.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call for calmness on both sides of the Chamber.

Tony Blair: If we want to—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. That includes the Chief Whip—[Interruption.] Especially the Chief Whip.

Tony Blair: Especially as she has other work to do.
	If we want to talk about vulnerable children, let us talk about the numbers of children languishing in poverty when the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was a Cabinet Minister under the last Government and about the children—500,000 to 600,000 of them—helped out of poverty under this Government. When we look at the real record, not the synthetic anger, we see where the shame lies.

Bob Blizzard: Ever since oil and gas were first discovered in the North sea in the early 1960s, we have exercised national control over the exploitation of these assets through licensing arrangements and so on. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the inclusion of energy clauses in the draft treaty on the European Union constitution could lead to the ceding of competence over these matters to the European Union? Will he draw an end to uncertainty on this matter by making it a red line issue in the forthcoming negotiations?

Tony Blair: We have made it absolutely clear that there cannot be any question of the European Commission getting those powers, and I can assure my hon. Friend that that will be one of the issues that we raise in the course of the negotiation we are about to enter into—and I have no doubt that, as with other things, we will be successful.

Simon Burns: Last month in this Chamber, the Prime Minister talked about reasonable council tax increases. For next year, what is a reasonable increase?

Tony Blair: It is not for the Government to set the amount of council tax increase; it is for local councils. But as I said last month and have repeated on many occasions, it is reasonable for the Government to fund local authorities properly. We have given real-terms increases to local authorities over the last few years—a record that stands in contrast to the cuts under the previous Government. Therefore, obviously it is a matter for local authorities to set their council tax, but the Government have done their bit by funding local authorities properly.

Piara S Khabra: I am sure that the Prime Minister is fully aware of the significance of the Crossrail project, its importance to Londoners and the benefits it will bring to business and in helping to reduce overcrowding on public transport in London. I know that the Secretary of State for Transport is supporting the project, and it is popular with the people and has cross-party support. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the money will be available for this project and that work will start as soon as possible, unless it is already too late?

Tony Blair: As I said in the House a short time ago, what we do believe is that Crossrail is an important project for London and could have real benefits for Londoners. As my hon. Friend knows, a review panel of experts is examining the proposal by Cross London Rail Links to establish how it could be funded, and we expect the panel to report in the new year.

Michael Jack: If the Prime Minister wants to help British manufacturing jobs, may I refer him to a report from the Ministry of Defence which concluded that it would be feasible for Britain to assemble and maintain its fleet of 150 joint strike fighters? To that end, may I ask him to raise with President Bush the release of the necessary technologies to the United Kingdom to make a bid for that work feasible, and thus safeguard tens of thousands of aerospace jobs, particularly in the north-west?

Tony Blair: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that this issue obviously has implications for British manufacturing and skills. We are raising the issue with the American Government. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary raised it with his counterpart last week, and I have no doubt that I will raise it with President Bush over the coming days. It is important, particularly in view of our relationship with the United States, that we are able to secure not just as much of the technology but as many of the jobs as possible.

Ashok Kumar: When, at the end of this week, President Bush visits the north-east, will my right hon. Friend tell him the importance of steel-making for the north-east economy? Will he ask the President to respect the World Trade Organisation rules, so that he can take some form of action, in order to demonstrate his commitment to being our strong ally, at least to scrap the illegal steel tariffs that he has introduced?

Tony Blair: As I said earlier, I can assure my hon. Friend that I will raise this issue with President Bush. I said, in answer to an earlier question, that there was $2,000 million-worth of trade between the two countries; it is actually $2,000 billion-worth. Of course from time to time such trade issues come up in the relationship between Europe and America—I remember they did under the previous President of the United States as well—but let us not forget that in commercial and trading terms it is still an enormously important relationship for our two countries.
	I just point out that, according to the latest figures, about 1 million people in Britain are employed by American firms. So it is a very good two-way deal, but we want it to become a perfect one. Obviously, it is in our interests, and we will argue very strongly for the WTO ruling to be obeyed.

Nigel Waterson: May I tell the Prime Minister that, after a bogus consultation exercise, the Post Office has now announced that it is closing five post offices in my constituency, including the main one at Upperton road? Is that what his Government mean by "network reinvention"?

Tony Blair: No, it is not, but there obviously have been post office closures—there were under the previous Government as well—and the question is what we can do to minimise the likelihood of that happening, because they are happening, I am afraid, for reasons to do with the state of the commercial market. The reasons are not to do with Government policy; they are to do with the need of the Post Office to adapt in the different world in which we live today, but I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that we are putting somewhere in the region of £300 million-worth of support into the post office network. It is difficult for us to do more. We are doing what we can. I am sorry if there are post offices in his constituency at risk, but it would not be honest for the Labour party—or, indeed, any party—to pretend that we can avoid all post office closures, because we cannot.

Chris Bryant: One of my constituents is a close family relative of two young children who were abducted and murdered more than 10 years ago. No one has yet been convicted of either of those murders, and the family is understandably keen to see changes to the double jeopardy rule, precisely as envisaged in the Criminal Justice Bill that is now to be considered in another place. Will the Prime Minister stand firm to ensure that that Bill comes through in precisely the way that my constituent would like? Will he also stand firm against any Lords pressure on problems to do with serious fraud?

Tony Blair: First, in relation to double jeopardy, yes, we will, and I hope that we have now got agreement on that. The point about serious fraud, though, is absolutely vital because, at the moment, the Conservative party is refusing to agree that we should remove jury trials in serious fraud cases—something that was recommended by Roskill about 25 years ago and, most recently, by Sir Robin Auld. That is absolutely essential to deal with serious fraud trials that can go on for months and concern organised criminals. Every single section of law enforcement in this country is in favour of doing that, and we will not get the proper measures necessary to convict serious criminals if we do not support that proposal. I say to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) that if his party is to be credible on law and order, it should do what the police, the Serious Fraud Office and Customs and Excise want and get that legislation through.

William Cash: The Prime Minister raised the question of statesmanship. In relation to his own ministerial code and public trust, would he be good enough to give the House a straight answer to a straight question? Who is right—himself or Kevin Tebbit, or General de Chastelain or himself?

Tony Blair: Well—[Interruption]—that is not exactly a straight question. In respect of the first, the hon. Gentleman should await the outcome of the Hutton inquiry. In respect of General de Chastelain, I stand by what I have already said.

Oona King: Does the Prime Minister agree that unemployment, glass ceilings and the pay gap keep women out of the job market; unfortunately, out of Parliament; and, it seems, off the Opposition Front Bench? Does he agree that, in a democracy, it is really important that we have women not just in the Government, where a third of Ministers are women, but in the Opposition, where, unfortunately—[Interruption]—lovely though they are, 92 per cent. are men?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister has nothing to do with the Opposition; he has got enough to worry about.

Tony Blair: Were you saying, Mr. Speaker, that I do not have to answer for the Opposition? Thank goodness. The point that my hon. Friend makes about the numbers of women in the work force is obviously important. Employment of women has gone up by almost 1 million since this Government came to power, but more importantly, through a series of measures on the work-life balance relating to maternity pay, maternity leave and extra help on child care, we are beginning to try to narrow some of the gaps between the job opportunities for men and the job opportunities for women. We shall certainly take that agenda further.

Pete Wishart: Following all the shuttle diplomacy, the conflict itself and the appalling aftermath of the war, have the Prime Minister and the President of the United States come to any agreement as to why this war happened in the first place? Surely it has not got anything whatever to do with weapons of mass destruction.

Tony Blair: We went into conflict because we believed—in my view, rightly—that Saddam Hussein was a threat to his region and to the wider world, and we are proud of the fact that people in Iraq today, for the first time in decades, have got the chance of stability, prosperity and democracy. What everyone should realise is that if people like the hon. Gentleman had had their way, Saddam Hussein, his sons and his henchmen would still be terrorising people in Iraq. I find it quite extraordinary that he thinks that that would be a preferable state of affairs.

Buckingham Palace

David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the serious breach of security at Buckingham Palace.

David Blunkett: The House is rightly concerned about the reports in the Daily Mirror today, which involve the security of the royal household, the Queen and the President of the United States. I am, of course, addressing those concerns, but let me begin by setting this matter in context.
	The day-to-day critical work of security has been and continues to be carried out with skill and professionalism. The security of the royal family involves a wide range of measures. Physical security and the personal protection provided by the police form a critical part of that process. Clearly, however, the checks on those who work closely alongside the royal family are key, too.
	As you would expect, Mr. Speaker, there is a comprehensive system of checking for those who, in the course of their work, have close contact with the Queen, members of the royal family and those visiting them. That process involves both security and criminal checks in addition to the sort of employment checks expected from any employer. Clearly, in these circumstances, that is even more vital. In the case of Ryan Parry, the key security and criminal record checks were carried out robustly and correctly, but the employment checks proved insufficient in this case. The palace has already announced that it is reviewing that aspect of the vetting procedure. The House should also know that as part of the preparations for the visit of President Bush, further robust security and criminal record checks have been carried out on all those staff, both permanent and contractual, working at the palace and beyond.
	Nevertheless, I am concerned that the system as a whole needs to be reviewed urgently. The Prime Minister, with the support of the royal household, is therefore asking the Security Commission, which is an independent body responsible for overseeing breaches of security, to conduct a thorough review. I am still in the process of agreeing the precise terms of reference and timetable for its work, but I would want an interim report by the end of the year. I would expect that to cover all aspects of the process of checking those who form part of the royal household.
	All of us would wish to ensure that gaps exposed in the protection that we offer are closed as quickly as possible. One of the strengths of our democracy is that such breaches are open to scrutiny, we can learn quickly from them, and nothing is swept under the carpet.

David Davis: I thank the Home Secretary for his answer. I am sure that the whole House will share his concern at another serious breach of security at a royal residence less than six months after the last incident at Windsor castle. On that occasion, the Metropolitan police owned up to a series of one-off blunders. This new incident—in which, at a time of heightened national security, a journalist has been allowed free and unfettered access to virtually all areas of Buckingham palace—is in many ways far more serious.
	All the available evidence suggests that this is less a series of blunders than a potentially fatal weakness at the heart of security covering the Head of State. I welcome, in particular, the Home Secretary's announcement of a review by the Security Commission. However, he must explain why the system has failed and, in doing so, must answer a simple question: who does he hold responsible for this serious lapse that has revealed a woeful gap in security at a time of heightened terrorist threat?
	After Chilcot's recommendations, security at the palace became the responsibility of the palace, the Metropolitan police and the Home Office, but who is in overall charge? Who is responsible for co-ordination to ensure that nothing slips through the cracks? Has this been reviewed since the security failures at Windsor? In particular, who is responsible for vetting people who work in the royal household? Is it the palace, the Metropolitan police or the Home Office? If, as I suspect, the answer is all three, who is in overall charge of that process, and has there been a review of those procedures since the Windsor fiasco? If not, why not? Moreover, what steps are now being taken urgently to review the status of all staff recruited to the royal household, particularly in the past 12 months?
	There has been a huge amount of publicity surrounding President Bush's visit and in the past—most notably, the bombing of the Conservative party conference at Brighton—terrorists have inserted devices far in advance of the actual event. Can the Home Secretary tell us whether there are special arrangements—we do not want to know the details—to prevent similar attacks on visiting Heads of State? Although much attention has been given to security levels over the next two days while President Bush is here, is the Home Secretary satisfied that sufficient attention has been given to the advance arrangements for his visit? As I said, I welcome the Home Secretary's announcement about the Security Commission's inquiry, but can he assure me that the questions that I have asked will be addressed by that commission and that its proposals will be rapidly put into place?
	The seriousness of this security lapse cannot be overestimated. Following the incident at Windsor castle, the Home Secretary told the House that
	"we will work with the police and the royal household to ensure that lessons can be learned from this event that can only improve the security of the royal family for the future".—[Official Report, 24 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 868.]
	Given the undertaking that he gave to the House, does he accept personal responsibility for the events of the past few days and will he act, and act soon, to bring to an end this catalogue of incompetence?

David Blunkett: First, as I said at the Dispatch Box in June, I accept responsibility for ensuring that lapses are correctly dealt with and that reviews are implemented. I will do that with the Security Commission's recommendations that arise out of its review of this incident.
	We need to try to put the matter into perspective. In this case, we are talking about the failure to undertake the sort of employment checks that I and, I think, the right hon. Gentleman would have expected to happen. We will ensure—the palace has already indicated this—that that will be corrected in future.
	It is important to be clear that we have learned the lessons of Windsor. The physical security breaches that occurred there and the intrusion from outside have been dealt with. The Metropolitan police took entire responsibility for that event, and the co-ordination of the different forces and elements involved has been secured. Over the past three months, we have not only learned the lessons but put them into place.
	There is clearly an issue when someone seeks to engage in employment. It is not that they are a threat, because the security and criminal records checks had been secured and recognised that this individual, Mr. Parry, was who he said he was, but they had not revealed his previous job. That is a breach and I have said that I believe that it needs to be closed. The palace is responsible—one only has to read the Daily Mirror this morning to see who is responsible for handling personnel matters—and it has indicated that not only is it correcting the reviews that are undertaken, but it is prepared to work with the commission. I mentioned that when responding at the Dispatch Box just now.
	I am responsible overall for the security and criminal records checks and the palace has acknowledged that there needs to be a review of the personnel checks. We need to work with the commissioner and SO13 to ensure that such checks are in place in the future.
	I shall answer the absolutely fundamental question asked by the right hon. Gentleman: am I satisfied that the preparations made for the President's visit and his stay at Buckingham palace were satisfactory and undertaken in the way in which we would expect? Yes, I am. Am I satisfied that proper checks are now being made regarding employment? Yes, I am. Is it clear that we are able to provide the sort of security for the President's state visit to our country that we would want for ourselves when making such a visit? Yes, it is. I am also clear about asking all those who are demonstrating their right in a democracy to express an alternative view to that of the President of the United States to assist us by ensuring that those who wish to engage in violence or disruption are seen off effectively by collaboration among those who are organising peaceful demonstrations and the police. The police wish to protect the security of not only the President of the United States, but the people of London.

Mark Oaten: I hope that the Home Secretary acknowledges that such a breach undermines the huge effort of the 14,000 police officers who have been called in to provide security, given that one individual can get such a level of access. Given that press reports suggest that Mr. Parry was able to carry equipment in and out of Buckingham palace, will the Home Secretary confirm whether the palace has in place scanning equipment through which members of staff must pass when they go to work? Will he assure me that the weaknesses that have been exposed in Buckingham palace in the employment of catering or administrative staff could not exist in Downing street or the Palace of Westminster? Finally, does he acknowledge that such breaches do not pose a direct threat only to the royal family because intelligence that may be gathered from such a breach could be more damaging? Who is to say that some groups have not already obtained sensitive information from such a breach that could be used in the future?

David Blunkett: On the hon. Gentleman's third question, I make it clear that if people who had not been correctly security checked or who had a criminal record were allowed through the vetting procedure, there would be the kind of risk that he outlined. However, that was not true in this case. There was no doubt about Mr. Parry's identity, where he said he had been or what he said he had done. He acknowledges in this morning's Daily Mirror that all the statements that he made, except that relating to his immediate employment with the newspaper, were correct. That gives the lie to the suggestion that we allowed a terrorist into the palace, and we must be aware of that when we put the matter into perspective.
	None of that undermines the key point that people who are vetted and have security clearance must also go through stringent and sensible procedures as precautions against what they might carry into the palace or the Palace of Westminster. I entirely accept that it is right and proper that screening should take place to ensure that people do not abuse their positions. Yes, previous breaches in the House of Commons, including those investigated by the Security Commission, have been dealt with, and procedures were tightened up when necessary. When they were tightened up, Members of the House understandably often became irritated and annoyed with those who increased security and the surveillance of people, including Members of Parliament. I ask people to bear with us when that happens because we do it for precisely the reasons that the hon. Gentleman raised.

Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in an imperfect world, events such as these will happen from time to time in all institutions? Does he also agree that vetting at the palace over the years has not been very good anyway? In the years when the Tory Government were in power, a fellow finished up in the Queen's bedroom. There is a question of the Fawcett fellow, George Smith and Burrell. They did not do a very good job of vetting Princess Diana either, did they?

David Blunkett: I thought my hon. Friend's opening point was valid. All hon. Members, from whichever side of the House, will want to ensure that past and present events are treated with appropriate weight and seriousness, that we learn the lessons and that we go forward in a spirit that helps us to sort out security instead of scoring political points.

James Arbuthnot: What action did the Home Secretary personally take in advance of the President's visit to ensure his safety and that of the Queen? Why did he fail?

David Blunkett: Other people will make a judgment on that. I do not accept that I failed. As Home Secretary with responsibility for the security service and the police, including SO13, I undertook, as hon. Members would expect, to meet those groups a number of times to go through the measures they were taking, to reassess those over the past 48 hours, to ensure that I was satisfied that the measures they were taking to protect both the President and the people of London were adequate and satisfactory, and to ensure that any lessons from the past had been necessarily learned. I did not surveille the personnel procedures at the palace. I do not think that even the most vehement opponent of mine in the House would have expected me to do so.

David Winnick: Although security is important, is it not also important that people can go about their lawful business? While passing Buckingham palace on my way to the House today, I saw people doing precisely that. Is that not a guarantee of our democracy? We should be very proud that despite all the security precautions, which are obviously necessary, people can go about their everyday business.

David Blunkett: My hon. Friend makes a profound point in terms of both the ability of the household—I made this point in relation to the incident at Windsor—to conduct itself as a family and the ability of people to demonstrate by taking advantage of the freedoms that we built up over the last century. When my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and I met the President this morning, there was no doubt whatsoever that the Metropolitan police had rightly allowed those demonstrating to get close enough for the President to hear their messages. If we had not done so, people would have rightly criticised us for being too draconian, as they did with the visit of the President of China. Finding a sensible middle road has to be the way forward if our democracy and freedoms are to be upheld.

Patrick Cormack: As the Home Secretary has ultimate responsibility for these matters, is he entirely satisfied that everyone working in Buckingham palace and all those who will serve tonight at the state banquet have been properly checked and their previous employment records vouched for? Is he completely satisfied that there is no remaining risk?

David Blunkett: Yes I am.

John Denham: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement of the review. When such incidents occur, as they do from time to time, they nearly always happen not because the system itself is badly designed, but because an individual within the system has failed to carry out his or her proper responsibilities. Will he assure us that the review will look not just at the design of the security systems, but at the methods that will constantly be in place to check how they are carried out in practice?

David Blunkett: Yes, I can, but I have to respond to the point that my right hon. Friend's question raises. There will always be the potential for human error. That is a simple fact. I want to ensure that the processes of robust checking and managing, and second checking if necessary, do not end up with us taking action against low-level members of staff instead of ensuring that the systems themselves are robust enough to protect us against such eventualities.

Andrew MacKay: As the Home Secretary is clearly responsible for the security of both the palace and the Metropolitan police, why did he not come to the House to make a statement? Why was it only through your good offices, Mr. Speaker, that you allowed an urgent question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis)? Should not the Home Secretary have lived up to his responsibilities?

David Blunkett: I do not know what point the right hon. Gentleman is trying to make. When I returned from the palace this morning, I found that more than one Member had tabled an urgent question. I was happy to accept the one from the shadow Home Secretary. Is there any point—

Alan Duncan: Why did you not volunteer?

David Blunkett: Well, I could have rung the right hon. Gentleman and said, "Would you withdraw your application to the Speaker, and I'll make a statement of my own," but how silly can you get?

Teddy Taylor: As it has been reported in the press that Mr. Parry got his job on the basis of a bogus letter of recommendation, will the Home Secretary say whose task it is to check letters of recommendation? Is it for the police or for the palace authorities to do so? Given that Mr. Parry clearly misled his employers, is any action against him being contemplated?

David Blunkett: I have not addressed the latter issue with the Crown Prosecution Service. On the first question, the task is clearly one for those who undertake the personnel policy and review work.
	There is a wider issue on which we can learn a valuable lesson. When people use e-mail and fax, it is much more difficult to ascertain the true nature of the individuals with whom one is dealing and the veracity of the statements made, not least the addresses given. The lesson to be learned by all of us is that one should check. It would have been necessary to check with Companies House to determine whether the individual had been working for a company that existed, or whether the company that had responded by fax or e-mail to the request for information only appeared to exist.

Brian Mawhinney: Does the Home Secretary accept that although he was right to point out that on this occasion a terrorist did not get into Buckingham palace, he was wrong to invite us to assume that that could not have happened? Much terrorist activity is committed by people with no criminal record. The right hon. Gentleman needs to reflect further on his answer. He told us that he was willing to take responsibility for the changes that are to take place, but he was careful not to tell us who in the Home Office should take responsibility for the present shambles.

David Blunkett: First, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that I said that that could never happen. Had the security and criminal record checks not been conducted properly, we would clearly have been open to the potential for the individual—in this case, Ryan Parry—to have links with terrorists or to present the danger of committing terrorist attacks. I would accept that in those circumstances, but not in the present case.
	Secondly, I have not accepted that an individual in the Home Office failed in their duties. I have indicated that both the security and the criminal record checks were undertaken correctly, but there are major lessons to be learned and we are learning them. That is why the Security Commission is being engaged in the question of employment checks, even though the only check that should have been carried out but was not was related to the individual's previous job and the veracity of the reference given to Mr. Parry. I think that we shall learn the lessons from that.

Mark Field: I endorse the observations made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), but say to the Home Secretary that there have been concerns not only for the past few hours, but for many days—indeed, many Londoners have been extremely worried by the prospect of armed presidential bodyguards being on the streets of London. We need to know where the buck stops. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give urgent attention to ensuring that we have absolutely clear lines of authority during any future state visit, so that we can fully understand what is going on.

David Blunkett: I reassure the hon. Gentleman and the House that those lines are absolutely clear. They rest with the head of SO13 and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner.
	To correct a mis-statement by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), there are not 14,000 police deployed; there are 14,000 shifts. There is a big difference between the two in terms of deployment. Contrary to statements made in the press, authorisation has not been given to hundreds of armed officers from the United States; at any one time, about a dozen are authorised to work with the President. We have relied on the good experience and skill of SO13 and our police to do the job. Lines of responsibility and who is responsible have been and will remain absolutely clear. On that basis, I am secure in the knowledge that every step has been taken to protect the people of London and the President of the United States and his entourage.

Eric Forth: Just for a moment, I thought that we had got the answer on where the buck stopped, but I am left in doubt yet again. Will the Home Secretary tell us whether he is ultimately responsible in this respect, or will he continue to say that someone else is? We really deserve an answer.
	I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the Security Commission, but will he consider widening its terms of reference to the Houses of Parliament? I am not sure that we can be satisfied that our own vetting arrangements are any better than those at Buckingham palace. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney) said, the main threat is probably not from people with a criminal record, but from people without a criminal record. We must be satisfied that anyone who comes to work on these premises and gets a pass is vetted positively, so that we can be sure that we are beyond danger.

David Blunkett: On the latter point, I acknowledged to the Liberal Democrat spokesman that there was a real issue relating to the Palace of Westminster, and I do not intend to repeat myself.
	On the first point, I answered accurately a question on the co-ordination of operational activity and security. It ill-behoves Opposition Members, who constantly chide me for interfering with operational responsibilities, to say that I should interfere in that respect. I have said who has responsibility for co-ordination of security and policing, but the political buck stops with me. I made that clear earlier in my statement, and I am absolutely clear that, constitutionally, that is the case. I cannot be operationally responsible when I am not, but I can be politically responsible when I am, and that is what I have enunciated this afternoon.

Simon Hughes: Given that the Home Secretary has, rightly, accepted that the ultimate responsibility is his, but that there are royal residences and offices in all parts of the United Kingdom, may I take it that one issue that he will take up with the authorities in all those places is that all those who work for the paid members of the royal family, who do a job on behalf of the state, are checked as they go into the building and, if necessary, checked as they come out? Mr. Parry says that he went in and out without anyone checking that he was not carrying something that could have posed a threat. Such checks strike me as a simple measure that should have been in place and certainly should be taken from now on.

David Blunkett: I responded to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) in a similar vein. I agree that there is an issue—that security procedures and vetting in relation to criminal records, no matter how good those procedures are, automatically secure us, and that we do not have to have additional procedures in place, is clearly a flawed presumption. That issue needs to be examined as part of the Security Commission report.

Roy Beggs: I welcome the statement and the commitment that lessons will be learned. Will the Home Secretary assure us that if the inquiry establishes that there was negligence on the part of a responsible officer, the price will be paid? Will he also assure us that the House will not have to wait for the Security Commission's report as long as we in Northern Ireland have been waiting for a report on the serious breaches of security that occurred at Stormont and Castlereagh?

David Blunkett: I note the hon. Gentleman's final point. On his first point, I have already established—it is important to understand this—that the procedures and systems and those operating them will form part of the commission's review with the support of the royal household. Wherever a flaw is found, it will be for those employing the individuals concerned to make the decisions. Because the royal household is involved as part of the procedure, I shall say no more in that respect this afternoon. Under our constitution, the matter is delicate, and despite the requests made on some occasions for the Home Secretary to raise his power and on others to diminish it, I do not intend to get involved in a wrangle about managerial responsibilities. That will have to be defined later.

Edward Garnier: Does the Home Secretary agree that it is clearly in the national interest that security lapses should be discovered and remedied? Does he share my concern that there appear to be a growing number of stunts on airport, aircraft and VIP security, which appear to be motivated as much by generating publicity and increased circulation than by the desire to improve security? If it transpires that the reporter in question misled, in any way, those to whom he was giving information, in order to gain access to the palace, will the Home Secretary invite the police to make investigations to ascertain whether a crime was committed?

David Blunkett: I think that that would form part of the review. I think also that the Crown Prosecution Service, as it does on these occasions, will have to take a view. At this moment, I am more interested in ensuring that we get this right than I am in looking behind the motives of the Daily Mirror.

Edward Leigh: The Home Secretary has mentioned his desire to protect the right of people to protest peacefully, and mention has been made of the Palace of Westminster. Will he confirm that it was not security considerations surrounding the Palace of Westminster that prevented an invitation from being sent to President Bush inviting him to address both Houses of Parliament? Alternatively, was it fear of peaceful demonstrations by some of his colleagues?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That question is outside the scope of the statement.

Angela Watkinson: Will the Home Secretary explain the inconsistency between the haphazard checks made on a bogus employee in the royal palace and the draconian checks that are made on voluntary organisations such as school governing bodies? For example, I and my school governor colleagues were required to bring our passports to school to demonstrate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That, too, is outside the scope of the statement.

John Randall: Following on from the good points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), will the Home Secretary say whether the procedures that we have in this Palace are better or worse than those at Buckingham palace?

David Blunkett: I have made it clear that both in terms of security checks and criminal records checks, the palace and the security service SO13 have undertaken their work perfectly reasonably. The issue for those employed in the Palace of Westminster rests not only with the House authorities but with us as employers. I ask the hon. Gentleman and others who have made similar points to check their own personal activity as well as pointing the finger at other people's.

Peter Luff: Does the Home Secretary not understand that the simple fact is that someone who should not have gained access to such a private place as Buckingham palace did gain access? Does he not understand the sense of grievance and anger that we feel when double standards appear to apply? Voluntary organisations, such as Hereford and Worcester Dyslexia Association, have to jump through hoops backwards to get people whom they know and trust into employment, yet the Home Secretary cannot safeguard the security of the Queen and the President of the United States of America.

David Blunkett: This silly, worked-up, artificial point shows a failure to grasp that Ryan Parry was put through the same Criminal Records Bureau procedure. I have repeated that, I think, 14 times this afternoon, but when people wish to be deaf, they are deaf.

Hugo Swire: This is the second time in the past six months that the Home Secretary has had to come to the House to explain away a serious breach involving royal palaces. Nothing that he has said today would lead us to suppose that he will offer his resignation, as the late Lord Whitelaw did after a similar break-in at Buckingham palace in the early 1980s, but I hope that he will take this opportunity to offer a public apology to Her Majesty for embarrassing her, with her visitor from the United States.
	That having been said, if the Home Secretary is to investigate the background to Mr. Ryan Parry and the evidence that he produced, will he extend that investigation to the editor of the Daily Mirror and make that part and parcel of any investigation into this new break-in?

David Blunkett: I made it clear in July that I did not think that Willie Whitelaw should have offered his resignation. I did not think that he was responsible for somebody getting into the Queen's bedroom. That is a silly point to make this afternoon. If I were responsible for a failure, I would carry the can for it. I have already said that to a number of Conservative Members, who are desperate to make a party political point out of this matter. If I am not responsible, I will not. If Her Majesty felt that I, or my colleagues, had let her down in any way, I am sure that she would have said so to me this morning when I was given the grace and pleasure of meeting her.

Adrian Flook: I have been listening carefully to the Home Secretary's answers. I would appreciate it if he could confirm that there will also be a review of security procedures for the granting of a pass for this Palace.

David Blunkett: I have dealt with this point four times now, and I am happy to continue to do so. Although hon. Members often get aggrieved and irritated at the time that it takes for security clearance and the difficulties they themselves sometimes have in getting through without having to present their passes, I am convinced, as is the hon. Gentleman, that we need to keep up our levels of security.

Local Government Finance Settlement 2004–05

Nick Raynsford: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a statement about local authority revenue finance for England in 2004–05.
	The provisional settlement that I am announcing today will be the seventh successive one giving an above-inflation increase in funding for local government. It will build on the significant real-terms growth that we have been able to provide since taking office; grants to local government have increased by 29 per cent. in real terms since 1997. That contrasts with a 7 per cent. cut in the last four years of the last Government.
	Next year's settlement will see total support from Government grant and business rates of £54.1 billion, which is a cash increase on this year's settlement of £3.3 billion, or 6.5 per cent. The total includes £26.6 billion of revenue support grant, £15 billion in business rates, £4.2 billion in police grant, and £8.3 billion in special and specific grants. Of those totals, £45.8 billion will be distributed by formula to local authorities—an increase of £2.1 billion, or 4.7 per cent.—and I am announcing the detailed allocations today.
	In order to provide certainty and stability, and as already announced, we are making no changes to the formula spending share formulae this year. We have made the necessary adaptations to allow combined fire authorities to receive formula grant in their own right.
	Floors and ceilings have become an accepted part of the settlement in recent years, and as already announced, we will continue to use this mechanism to set minimum and maximum limits on the percentage increases in grant received by authorities in each year, on a like-for-like basis. This is to ensure that all authorities receive an increase in grant and to avoid sharp short-term fluctuations, which can make forward planning difficult.
	For 2004–05, the floor and ceiling for authorities with education and social services responsibilities will be a 3.5 per cent. floor and a 5.8 per cent. ceiling. In some cases, however, authorities will receive more than 5.8 per cent. because we are also guaranteeing that they receive sufficient grant to pass on their schools formula spending share increase in full. For fire authorities, the floor will be 3.5 per cent. and the ceiling, 5 per cent. For both police authorities and shire district councils, we have decided in the interests of stability to set a floor that is close to the average grant increase. These floors are 3.25 per cent. for police authorities and 2.2 per cent. for shire districts. This year, therefore, the floors and ceilings effectively give all authorities in those groups a similar grant increase. As in previous years, we will add to floor or ceiling grant increases any revenue support for new capital allocations issued by the Government.
	We have also strengthened the arrangements for schools funding. Our proposals build on those in the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to the House on 29 October. Schools formula spending share will rise by between 5 per cent. and 6.8 per cent. per pupil in every authority. That means that all authorities will receive an increase in schools FSS that is substantially above inflation, and I reiterate our promise that every authority will receive a matching increase in its formula grant.
	The Government's clear expectation is that all authorities should pass the increase on to their schools budgets, other than in wholly exceptional circumstances. We have considered the point put to us by local government that, while it shares our ambitions for schools, it might be difficult to fund them fully because of spending pressures elsewhere. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has already announced £120 million worth of transitional support in 2004–05 to assist with schools spending pressures.
	I can announce that the Government are adding a further £300 million to help fund pressures other than those in respect of schools—for example, to help support social or environmental services. That is included in the overall totals that I have quoted, and it means that local authorities will be able to meet our expectations for funding schools, while also improving other services.
	We continue to consider carefully whether Government policies impose new spending burdens on local government, and to make provision to fund them if they do. For example, we have agreed with local government that it would be sensible to rationalise the funding of housing and council tax benefit subsidy. In implementing that transfer of responsibility, we have ensured that all properly made claims will be fully funded. Similarly, in respect of local government's new responsibility for the licensing system, I can confirm the commitment already given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport that we will ensure that the costs of the licensing system are fully covered by the fees. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will reduce spending pressures on local government by some £25 million to £35 million in respect of waste next year. Some £10 million of that will come from deferring until 2005–06 the introduction of the landfill allowance trading scheme.
	Local authorities have pressed us to reduce the use of ring-fencing—that is, restrictions on the use to which Government grants may be put. We recognise that ring-fenced grants have their proper place in securing specific results, particularly as a short-term measure, but they cut across local accountability and can distort local priorities, so we need to review their use very carefully. I can announce today that from 2004–05, we will remove the ring fence from five social services grants and three grants in the environmental, protective and cultural services block—a total of £750 million in 2004–05, and more in subsequent years. Those grants will be distributed separately from formula grant, so as to distribute the money to the right places, but no conditions will attach to their use. The result will be to bring the proportion of grants that are ring-fenced down from 13.3 per cent. to 11.1 per cent. in 2004–05. We are on course to meet our target of reducing that proportion below 10 per cent. by 2005–06.
	Hon. Members will be aware that the main provisions of the Local Government Act 2003 came into effect yesterday. The Act gives local authorities greater freedom to borrow and trade, and enables authorities to retain income from fees and charges. The new prudential borrowing system, which will start on 1 April 2004, coupled with the other financial freedoms, will help local authorities to organise their financial affairs more flexibly and to generate additional revenue.
	All that is important to enable local authorities to budget prudently and minimise demands on council tax payers. We are clear about the fact that the current trend in council tax rises is not sustainable. People expect their local councils to set reasonable council tax. They and we are looking to authorities to deliver high-quality services in a cost-effective way. Against the background of further substantial increases in Government grant, and the extension of freedoms and flexibilities to local authorities, large council tax increase are simply not acceptable.
	Local authorities should be aware that the Government will examine next year's council tax rises very closely. We will be looking for evidence that authorities have realised efficiency savings. We will take account not only of one year's increases, but of the trend in increases over more than one year. Every local authority, including fire and police authorities, must be in no doubt that we are prepared to use our targeted capping powers in 2004–05, if necessary, to protect the interests of council tax payers.
	We recognise that in areas where there is a combined fire authority, next year's budgets will not be comparable with this year's, because the combined fire authority will be a precepting body in its own right for the first time in 2004–05. We will therefore consult the fire authorities and authorities with education and social services responsibilities about the level of earlier years' budgets, which we will use for comparison purposes when we come to consider the use of capping powers.
	We are also taking steps to help individual taxpayers directly. Not all those who are entitled to help with their council tax bills are claiming the benefit. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is therefore working with local authorities to examine a range of options for promoting council tax benefit and encouraging the take-up of council tax benefit by potential beneficiaries. In particular, we want to ensure that the 1.9 million pensioners who will gain, or gain more, council tax benefit on the introduction of pension credit get the extra help to which they are entitled. My right hon. Friend will announce his proposals shortly.
	It is worth recalling the measures that the Government have already taken to help pensioners. Compared with the position in 1997, pensioner households will, on average, be more than £1,250 a year better off in real terms—about £24 extra a week. That is as a result of the Government's measures, including above-inflation rises in the basic state pension, free TV licences for the over-75s, the winter fuel payment and the pension credit. As a result of our measures to target the most help on those in greatest need, the poorest third of pensioners will have gained an average of £1,600 a year in real terms since 1997.
	The proposed settlement that I have announced today continues the trend of the past six years, which has delivered year-on-year investment increases in local services. In addition to the £3.3 billion extra grant announced today, we have extended the flexibility for councils to deploy resources where they will do most good. We have made the finances of schools more secure, while ensuring that councils retain the ability to tackle other priorities. We have provided a good settlement, on the basis of which local authorities can plan for future improvements in services without unreasonable increases in council tax. Local authorities asked for extra funding, for reductions in ring-fencing, and for no unfunded new burdens. We have responded positively to all three requests. It is now vital that councils meet the expectations of their taxpayers and budget prudently to improve services at a reasonable cost. I commend the settlement to the House.

David Curry: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for early sight of a fairly skeletal statement. He and I have spent a considerable part of our career on opposite sides of the same issues, and I look forward to a constructive, intelligent engagement on a subject that matters enormously to millions of our fellow citizens. I am glad of the healing presence of the Deputy Prime Minister, fresh from his new evening job as anger counsellor.
	The Minister has been at his mellifluous, Panglossian best this afternoon.

John Prescott: A bit of class.

David Curry: I always bring a bit of class, and if it hangs around, I hope some of it will rub off.
	This time last year, the Minister set out proposals that led to utter, unadulterated chaos. I suspect he saw it coming, but the blundering collision of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Skills—the collision of two bulldozers—left a crater deep enough to bury virtually the entire settlement. It led to confusion and incoherence so complete as to be almost inspirational. It led to the biggest council tax increases for a decade, and a campaign by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and the Minister for School Standards—the Laurel and Hardy of the Government—to blame everybody but themselves.
	The settlement is a panic-stricken and desperate attempt to repair last year's damage. The watermark right through the settlement is panic. [Interruption.] I am glad the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) agrees with me. I accept that the bills for next year will not reproduce the increases that we have seen this year. It is amazing how the imminence of elections can concentrate the mind. However, the mere fact that we do not have another catastrophe is not a virtue in itself. We will see yet again, as we see year after year, an inflation-busting increase in council taxes. Year on year, remorselessly, relentlessly and unremittingly, under this Government, council tax bills soar. Every year, Ministers recite the same old litany and say that the Government's proposals are fair, realistic and even generous. I have the speeches, which are a sort of black Gregorian chant. Each year, however, the inescapable arithmetic reasserts itself—bigger bills or reduced services. [Interruption.] It is very helpful to have been on the Government Benches, as one knows the tricks.
	There are things in the statement that I welcome, but they give rise to questions. On the £750 million reduction in ring-fencing, the Minister talked in his statement of payments outside the formula to direct the money to "the right places". Does that mean that the grants must be used in the general sector from which they came, or may they genuinely be applied freely across the range of local government spending? In other words, may earmarked, ring-fenced grants for social services be spent elsewhere?
	I welcome the additional funds to help services other than education. Last year, as the Minister will recall, the real crisis was the way in which education spending muscled every other sort of spending out of local government. Yet we all know that there is an historic shortfall in social services funding, and authorities also face the first year of bed-blocking fines, harmonisation of pay costs, mounting charges in care homes, and the cost of the new care standards and developing new arrangements for children's services, to which everybody in the House attaches enormous importance. I want to be reassured that we are not merely moving from catastrophe to disaster and declaring that that is a victory.
	What does the Minister mean by the rationalisation of funding of council tax and housing benefit? There is a real problem here, and it is not good enough merely to say that old-age pensioners and people just above benefit level suffer large council tax increases. People on benefits suffer because so many people fall through the net. We know that more than 1 million potential claimants do not make the claims for which they are eligible.

Edward Davey: Two million.

David Curry: The hon. Gentleman doubles the figure, but that is a Liberal tendency.
	It is necessary to make the benefits more accessible and efficient. Help the Aged has produced some extremely sensible proposals, and I am sure that the Minister will want to take them seriously.
	I note the deferment of some demands on council waste management requirements. That is welcome, as too many requirements are piling up without being costed. I bet that that was dragged out of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs through clenched teeth and that heels were digging into the earth this morning.
	At the heart of the statement was the explicit threat of capping. The Minister appealed to reason. One should beware of Governments when they appeal to reason, but I know just how important that little word "reasonable" is. Indeed, I think that the Government could not function without the concept of reasonableness, which they never define. However, we need to know what is reasonable in this context, as he uttered some serious threats. Is it council tax at inflation, or at twice or three times inflation? Is it anything that falls within double figures? Is that what is reasonable in this context? When he says that he will consider the trend over more than one year, does he have an aggregate increase in mind, and if so, over how many years? What level of efficiency gain is he asking local authorities to factor into the equation?
	I have a question about the total amount of money available. The Minister announced £54.1 billion in total support from the Government and business rates. The grey book has a projected revenue allocation of £54.5 billion. Are we really facing a settlement that is below forecast? If so, it is below forecast by an amount equivalent to the budget of a London borough.
	I have come across a helpful little leaflet headed "National Statistics" and "Office of the Deputy Prime Minister", and called "Local Government Finance—Key Facts", which shows just how draconian Labour's council tax policy has been. It raised £11.24 billion in 1997–98, and it is estimated that it will raise £18.9 billion in the current year. Under Labour, the annual increase in council tax has consistently been three times the rate of inflation. Band D has increased by an average of £413 a year or £8 a week. In London, the band D payment is now more than £1,000 and has increased by 63 per cent. under Labour, so it is no wonder that the Labour party is so anxious to recall Ken Livingstone to the party colours if he can be extracted from his latest demonstration.
	We have got used to Labour's pretence that public expenditure can rise painlessly, as borrowing and stealth taxes can take care of it, but the council tax is the tax from which it cannot hide. If I leave a rake on the floor of my tool shed and step on it, it will rear up and smack me in the face. Labour council taxes are that sort of tax; they are straight, up-front, in-your-face, cash-on-the-nail taxes, and as we all know, they hit the worst-off first. There is no escape. When services are delivered by local councils—[Interruption.] Just wait, it's coming. When services are delivered by local councils, every 1 per cent. of increased public expenditure that they have to fund requires a 4 per cent. rise in council tax. Even if the Government were to provide every penny of the increase in aggregate, which never happens, the distribution formulae would require local tax rises.
	That is the matrix at the heart of the system, so there is no escape from that stark logic. Public expenditure increases require higher council tax bills. That is not alchemy, accident or miscalculation, but logical necessity. When the Government embark on a massive increase in public expenditure—significantly higher increases than we have seen—

Ronnie Campbell: He's trying to bring back the poll tax.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) should control his excitement.

David Curry: The hon. Gentleman is repenting of agreeing with my earlier statement.
	When the Government embark on a massive increase in public expenditure, well ahead of inflation and significantly higher than in the past, the bigger bills automatically fall on the council tax payer's mat. It is no wonder that when the Minister's beaming countenance appears on the television screen, the prudent householder's hand moves instinctively to protect her wallet. What is the Government's response? It is very predictable. We are told that they are going to take council tax out of the new cost of living index.
	The Minister makes much of the arrangements for education funding. This year, education funding was the biggest part of the problem. What we saw did not require the insight of a prophet or sage. At its worst and most perverse, we saw authorities such as Barnet and Essex ordered to increase education funding by more than the total increase in the whole Government grant. We also saw a massive increase in tax to keep essential services in place. It was the classic Labour formula of over-promise and under-delivery, followed by a desperate attempt to dispose of the dead bodies that littered the stage.
	The price of the educational override that we now have, which was introduced by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, is a system yet more complex, difficult to understand and incapable of taking the additional strain. The poor old Deputy Prime Minister has lost another round to the Education Secretary and is reduced to following the Lord Mayor's show and trying to work out how the bits fit together.
	I fear that it will be the humble services that suffer in this settlement, at an average of about 2.2 per cent. for district councils. Pavements, street lights, pothole repairs, recreation and parks are the services that are often the closest to the citizen. This is the settlement that could mark the year when the streets begin to crumble. Of course, if the Minister is right and has paid the penance for last year's catastrophe, there will be rejoicing in the streets, and even the pensioners of Devon will invite him down again to share a grateful libation.
	This settlement is quite simply bad news. To use the technical expression—I am sure that the Minister is familiar with it—the citizen has been stuffed. It is bad news for pensioners, for people on low incomes, communities and others. It shows the same old spin, blather, centralisation and panic, and the same old Labour.

Nick Raynsford: I welcome the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) to his new position and congratulate him on having come back after his wilderness years to head such an enormous team of former shadow Cabinet members. I hope that they are all happy in their new roles.
	I, too, look forward to constructive engagement. It was interesting that the right hon. Gentleman's first comment implied that he accepted that council tax increases will not be as high in the coming year as they were last year. That probably indicates that he has been talking to his colleagues in Conservative local authorities, because it was those authorities that made this year's huge council tax increases of 16 per cent. He knows very well that his party was responsible.
	The right hon. Gentleman will doubtless say that it was not those councils that were responsible, but the Government, so I should like him to remember the views of his former boss, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who made similar announcements from this Dispatch Box in the 1990s. He took a very simple view on this issue:
	"When council tax bills go up, it is because the local authority puts them up. It has the control over them."—[Official Report, 27 November 1996; Vol. 286, c. 359.]
	Does he believe that his former boss was wrong? If, on the other hand, he accepts that view, I hope that he will tell his local authorities to restrain their council tax increases in the coming year.
	The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon asked a perfectly good, technical question about whether my comment on targeting the grant to the right place implied a different form of ring-fencing. I was referring to geographical location, because a number of such grants are specific and relate to circumstances that apply in some authorities but not others. We will continue to ensure that grants related to deprivation go to the right place—to those authorities that need such help—but, as I made clear in the statement, those grants will be unring-fenced.
	The right hon. Gentleman talked about unclaimed council tax benefit and referred to various proposals, including those from Help the Aged, to tackle the problem. We are very conscious of the importance of doing that, and we will look closely at any evidence from Help the Aged and others. Indeed, as I said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is actively engaged in that regard. The extension of the pension credit provides an opportunity to ensure that the new, more generous rules bring into entitlement those who previously did not qualify.
	The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the level at which capping might apply. He will know very well that there are two possible approaches to capping: one is to specify a level in advance, which is the approach that his party often used to take when in government; the other is to say, as we do, that it is not right to impose such crude and universal capping. However, as a responsible Government we cannot stand aside if authorities persistently increase council tax by unreasonable levels. That is why we retain our reserve powers, which we will use in circumstances where we believe it necessary to do so. We do not want to use them, and we hope that authorities will budget prudently, but we will if necessary, as I have made clear to the House.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the difference between the figures in the Grey Book and those in the settlement. As he will know from his own experience, it is the result of transfers that sometimes take place. This year, there is a transfer relating to council tax benefit and housing benefit, which in future will be fully reimbursed by the Department for Work and Pensions, rather than requiring a contribution from local authorities, which was supported under the revenue support grant. That explains the discrepancy between the figures.
	On band D increases, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that when he and his colleagues were in government, they used to boast proudly, year on year, that the average band D council tax in Tory authorities was £250 a year less than that in Labour authorities. I bet he has not looked carefully at the recent figures. If he does, he will see that the difference has shrunk virtually to nothing, because of disproportionate increases in Tory authorities. He should certainly talk to his colleagues in local government, in order to advise them that they will incur the ire of the electorate if they go on with disproportionate increases.
	On gearing, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that that effect is the consequence of the council tax scheme that his Government introduced. Nothing has changed since the scheme was introduced more than 10 years ago. On education, as we have already made clear, we are committed to improving the position of education authorities to ensure that extra money goes to schools but that other council services will not suffer as a result.
	The right hon. Gentleman said that district councils are, as I accept, getting a lesser increase than they got last year. Last year, they got a very good increase, averaging 7.5 per cent., but it is tighter this year. The settlement has a floor of 2.2 per cent., but even so, it is an increase. When his party was in government, district councils used to experience actual cuts in their grant, year on year. I shall remind him of the increases in grant from Government to local authorities between 1994 and 1997, when he was in charge of local government: in 1994–95, 1.1 per cent.; in 1995–96, –0.6 per cent.; in 1996–97, 1.2 per cent.; and in 1997–98, 0.2 per cent. Our settlement guarantees an average increase of 4.7 per cent. and builds on six previous years of increases, so it is pretty cool for him to complain about the level of increase. This Government are funding local authorities, and we expect them to set reasonable council tax increases.

Edward Davey: I thank the Minister for that statement, and join him in welcoming the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) to his new position; we look forward to his attacking his own policy on many other occasions. The Minister says that his statement is a good news story for local government. Does he remember saying the very same thing last year? Does he recall that the effect then of that statement was a schools funding crisis and record council tax rises?
	Did not the Minister give the game away when, during today's statement, he kept warning councils about their budgets? That was a case of getting his retaliation in first. The truth is that this year's statement is not a good news story for local government either. Many councils, especially those in the shire districts face real-terms cuts because of this low settlement. Is not the timing of the settlement a case of burying bad news under a Bush?
	At the heart of the statement is a massive funding gap. Even if the Minister's claim of £300 million extra turns out to be new money, which we very much doubt, does he accept that that will still leave a funding gap of £500 million? Will he confirm that, to fill that gap, authorities will be forced either to hike council tax or to slash services? Will he also admit that the biggest losers in this statement are the police? How can the Government talk tough on antisocial behaviour when they are asking chief constables either to hike council tax precept by 15 per cent. or to cut officers on the front line?
	Will the Minister concede that the Treasury, unlike the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, is assuming an average council tax rise of 7.3 per cent.—nearly three times inflation? How can he wash his hands of council tax rises, given that both he and the Treasury have built an above-inflation council tax rise into their own assumptions? Worse still, in the light of the massive funding gap, is there not a danger of another year of double-digit council tax rises? How can he square that with his stated view that the council tax is at the limit of acceptability?
	Given all that, it is surely incumbent on the Minister to be much clearer about his intentions in terms of capping councils. At least we know that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon supports widespread capping: that is what he did when in office—16 times. How does the Minister square his capping threats with Labour's opposition to capping when in opposition? Why did he change his mind? Back in May of this year, he promised not to cap councils rated excellent by the Audit Commission. Why, by August, had he changed his mind again? The Government are in a mess on council tax because they have made this unfair Tory tax even worse, so is not the real answer on council tax to scrap it, not cap it?
	On public services, this statement contains many hidden problems. On education, the Government have gone even further down the road of micro-managing every one of England's 21,397 schools. Given that almost every penny of Government support for schools is now ring-fenced, how does the Minister expect local education authorities to manage the £300 million overhang from this year's settlement? How are they expected to deal with their own demand-led spending on special educational needs and school transport? Given that 2,700 rural schools have fewer than 100 pupils, does not this straitjacket settlement imply a massive closure programme and yet another attack on the countryside?
	On social services, will the Minister confirm that the settlement will not meet in full authorities' massive cost pressures in respect of services such as fostering and elderly care homes? For shire district councils, the statement looks particularly bad, with the grant for their core services increasing by less than inflation—something that, when in opposition, the Minister called a cut.
	Will the Minister confirm that there is a real-terms cut for services such as recycling, cleaner streets and better lighting? Does not the recycling cut show that the environment remains a low priority for the Government?
	The Minister may revel in having the poll tax promoter as Conservative leader and the council-capping champ as Tory local government spokesman, but he must recognise that the past cannot help the council tax payers of today. He knows that the council tax is set to soar again. He knows that the statement will do nothing to stem the seething unrest and unease about the spiteful council tax.

Nick Raynsford: It is difficult to know what sort of settlement we would need to produce to make the Liberal Democrats happy. For years and years, authorities have had above-inflation increases. Again this year, for the seventh time running, local government is receiving an above-inflation settlement across the board. All authorities with education and social services responsibilities have well above-inflation increases, and districts have a near-inflation increase, after years under the previous Government when they faced cuts year on year. When we produce such settlements, the Liberal Democrats say how terrible it is. It reveals that they are living in a never-never land where money grows on trees and they can clamour for more and more resources without thinking about how to deliver value for money and cost-effective services.
	The hon. Gentleman said that our £300 million extra left a £500 million gap. Of course, he has taken the Local Government Association's estimate of £800 million extra spending pressure. He has ignored the £120 million extra education funding, so he cannot do his figures.

Matthew Green: It is not new money.

Nick Raynsford: It is new money.
	First, we can see that the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) has not got his figures right. Secondly, those LGA estimates are the typical position of the LGA. When we are approaching a settlement, there is negotiation, and obviously it wants to put the biggest possible gloss on the figures that it presents, so it offers some very imprecise spending estimates. It said that there was a £300 million schools overhang—although the full figures will not be available for some considerable time—and £300 million of additional social services pressures. Those are all figures plucked out of the air. There may be some substance to them, but they are not precise. However, the thing that is most telling is that there is no reference in any of the LGA figures to any possibility of cost savings or efficiency gains—none whatever. A 0.5 per cent. efficiency saving is all that would be required to fill the gap between the extra funding that we are putting in and the grand total of the LGA's somewhat inflated claim, so it does not wash.
	The hon. Gentleman said that the Treasury was assuming an average council tax rise of about 7 per cent., but I make it clear that it is not an assumption. Every year, the Treasury puts in a figure based on past years' trends, thinking about what council tax rises might be. We do not assume that it will be at that level. We sincerely hope that it will be significantly lower, but obviously, for public expenditure purposes, the Treasury has to make some calculation, and that is the basis of it.
	On capping, the hon. Gentleman asked why we have changed our mind in relation to excellent authorities. I have spelled it out on many occasions. We are reluctant to cap, but we cannot stand aside when authorities put up council tax by completely disproportionate amounts. The London borough of Wandsworth increased its council tax by 57 per cent. last year after cutting it by 25 per cent. the previous year—an election year. Few people would justify that increase—not even Conservative Members would justify it. However, had we said that excellent authorities would continue to be free from the risk of capping, that kind of excess would not have been considered, while other authorities with lesser increases might have been subject to capping. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that there must be fairness and consistency across all authorities on these matters. I regret the move, but it is inevitable because of the decisions of some irresponsible authorities to up their council tax by more than was necessary.
	The hon. Gentleman talks about scrapping the council tax. The Liberal Democrats do so blithely but, as he will know from the questions I have put to him, the implications of introducing a local income tax are far more complex than he and his party suggest, and the administrative costs are likely to be massive. His naive assumption that it can all be done with a saving of £500 million in administration beggars belief.
	The hon. Gentleman talks about particular problems of cost pressures on local authorities without talking about the scope for efficiency savings. He talks about more micro-management of schools, but in the past six months we have been working very closely with local government to ensure that effective measures are in place, so that schools get the funding that they want and need, and that local authorities have the means to do that and to fund other services. That is practical work with local government to meet our educational objectives. I am only sorry that he could not welcome that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I make a plea for single questions and single answers? Many hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye. I would like to please as many as possible.

Andrew Bennett: I thank my right hon. Friend for all the hard work that he has put into the local government settlement and for his courtesy and patience when he meets representatives from local authorities about individual settlements, but can he remind us how we got into the situation of a regressive council tax? It was a panic measure from the Tories' poll tax. As a result, we are going to continue to have unfairness in local finance. Will he tell us what progress is being made on the local funding review and whether he is satisfied that the increases in VAT that were imposed when the poll tax came in are finding their way to local government?

Nick Raynsford: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about the preparation of the settlement and our work to build a constructive dialogue and partnership with local government. We will continue to do that. He perfectly properly asked how the council tax has got into the position it has, where there is rising public concern about the level of increases in some areas. As I said earlier, the increases have varied from area to area, and some authorities, particularly Conservative authorities, have a very poor record, introducing large council tax increases in recent years. I hope that they will be much more prudent in the coming year. However, I recognise that there are issues about the council tax. It is precisely for that reason that the Government have initiated the balance of funding review, which he inquired about. That review has been going well. We have held three sessions to date. We have taken a lot of evidence. We have invited submissions and we will move on in the next few months to look at a series of options put to us by people who have submitted evidence to the review.
	It is too soon to forecast the outcomes of the review. We certainly intend to look closely at a range of options in an open-minded, thorough and rigorous way, but our objective in the long term is to come up with options that will help to inform conclusions by Government on the right way forward to ensure a sustainable basis for local government funding.

William Hague: Will the Minister acknowledge that the population estimates on which his allocations are necessarily made are increasingly controversial or even discredited in some parts of the country as a result of serious shortcomings in the 2001 census? In particular, is he aware that the difficulty of estimating the population around the largest Army base in the country at Catterick in North Yorkshire has led the Office for National Statistics seriously to underestimate the population of the district of Richmondshire? Given that the ONS has conceded that it has been in error—it recently made that concession—can he assure me that the figures that he is publishing today take full account of that error, and that if they do not, he will put it right?

Nick Raynsford: We have been in fairly regular dialogue with local authorities and the ONS about the statistics on which the settlement is based. The ONS has done some further data-matching exercises with both Westminster and Manchester city councils, where particular problems were identified. The right hon. Gentleman referred to some of the conclusions from that. The ONS will do further work. It is satisfied that, in general, the census was conducted in a thorough and rigorous way, and in many respects was the best and most comprehensive census yet, but there were issues and we are keen that they should be looked at carefully.
	I have already given an assurance that, if the ONS revises its population projections on which the settlement is based, we will make an amending report to ensure that those authorities that lost out as a result of the previous calculation are compensated. It is too soon to do that, but I have given that commitment, and that applies to any authority.

Joyce Quin: I support the broad principles adopted by my right hon. Friend in approaching this issue, but I want to express some frustration that Gateshead, which is an excellent authority, once again seems to have been given the lowest rise of any metropolitan authority in Tyne and Wear. Will he look at the situation, and give a clear explanation of what the problem seems to be?

Nick Raynsford: My right hon. Friend raised this issue with me last year. She rightly says that Gateshead is an excellent authority with an outstanding reputation for delivering good-value services. I shall certainly take on board her question about why it has a lower provisional settlement than surrounding authorities. I suspect that population factors have a lot to do with that, but I shall look into the matter and write to her.

Nicholas Winterton: Is the Minister aware that the Treasury has acknowledged that public sector price inflation is currently at 7.8 per cent? Is he convinced that the allocations that he is making to local government—especially to Cheshire and Macclesfield borough council—take that into account? Cost pressures in Cheshire include private sector charges for residential and nursing home care, which have risen by 14 per cent. In addition, bus contracts, which necessarily are a county council responsibility, have risen by between 50 and 60 per cent. How does he justify the allocation of resources in the face of increases that will pose huge problems for responsibly led councils?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will accept that Cheshire has received good settlements both last year and this year. This year's settlement gives it 5.7 per cent. extra. That is almost at the ceiling, well above the average for all authorities, and roughly double the rate of inflation. That is a good settlement, and I hope that Cheshire will be able to work within it. Cheshire is also receiving special and specific grants totalling £29.6 million. I hope that it will use those resources to deliver services efficiently to local residents, as I know the hon. Gentleman wants.

George Stevenson: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement on the reduction in the ring-fencing percentage applicable to social services, and urge him to continue that process. Will he have discussions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to see whether the same principle can be applied to the standards fund? Finally, we heard an interminable rant from the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), but I agreed with him on only one point—the issue of gearing. Will my right hon. Friend pay special attention to the local government gearing mechanism? It distorts local priorities and disrupts the financial system.

Nick Raynsford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. We are looking at the question of ring-fencing very carefully. I have announced a significant reduction in the current year and made it clear that we are committed to achieving further reductions next year. We will obviously be talking to colleagues in all Departments. I have made it clear that gearing is one of the factors that we are taking into account in the balance of funding review that is considering issues relating to local authority funding. No conclusions are available yet, but we are giving the matter serious attention.

George Young: Counties such as Hampshire will get only the minimum increase of 3.5 per cent. Will the Minister admit that that is a very tough settlement indeed, and that people in Hampshire know whom to blame for this year's inflation-busting increase—the Government and not the county council? Will he assure the House that the 3.5 per cent. floor increase to which he referred will in every case cover the mandatory increase in education spending that the Government are expecting local authorities to pass through?

Nick Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman is normally very punctilious about figures, but Hampshire county council will receive an increase of 4.6 per cent., not 3.5 per cent. If he looks at the settlement carefully, he will see that Hampshire county council will get a 4.6 per cent. rise, plus some £52 million in additional specific and special grants. That is a good settlement, and it is in marked contrast to what happened when he was a Minister in the old Department of the Environment. Local authorities then got the level of grants that I set out in my response to the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon. An increase of 4.6 per cent.—as opposed to increases of 1 per cent. or less, or even a reduction of 0.6 per cent.—looks like a very good deal. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell his council leader to budget prudently within those limits and to deliver the public services that local residents need.

Karen Buck: I welcome the protection for schools in this year's settlement, the continuation of the floor, and the flexibility fund. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that some London authorities face considerable pressure when it comes to providing services, as a result of a rising population, the census undercounting in some areas, the fact that problems with mental health are much more prevalent in London than in other parts of the country, and other difficulties? Will he say how the flexibility fund will be applied? Will he assure me that the pressures and demands of London and of the provision of non-statutory services—such as early-years and youth services—will be given high priority for support?

Nick Raynsford: The authority that my hon. Friend represents is one of those affected by census figures. Much discussion has taken place between the ONS and Westminster city council about those figures, but Westminster city council benefited from the floor last year. That protected the authority against a serious loss that would otherwise have been incurred, as result of the census figures. I am pleased that this year's figure for Westminster is, at 3.7 per cent., a little above the floor level. The authority is therefore being protected and has received a slight increase this year.
	The average increase for London authorities as a whole is 4.7 per cent., exactly in line with the national average. There is no question that London is being treated less favourably than the country as a whole.

Brian Mawhinney: The right hon. Gentleman's competence in this area of public policy is obvious and well-established, but I hope that he understands that his heavy reliance this afternoon on political spin emphasises the worrying nature of the settlement that he has announced. In the past six years, average council taxes in the real world have been two or three times higher than the percentage resource increases announced by Ministers at that Box. When council tax increases of between 9 and 12 per cent. are announced this year, will he consider them reasonable?

Nick Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman was another Minister in a Government that used to announce rather low increases in the local authority settlement of around 1 per cent. in a good year. I am sure that he will accept that that contrasts markedly with Cambridgeshire's grant increase this year of 6.2 per cent., following a record 8.5 per cent. last year. Those are very good increases, which most local authorities would regard as a sound basis for budgeting.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about council tax. We expect all councils to budget prudently and to restrict council tax demands to the lowest possible level. The levels that he is talking about seem to me to be high. We want authorities to provide good-value services in a cost-effective way, and not to impose unreasonable costs on council tax payers.

Harry Barnes: The previous Government's Local Government Finance Act 1988 put local government finance in a mess for a decade. It caused deprivation in some areas while others had money stuffed down their throats. The redistribution under this Government was slow to start with, but it has accelerated more recently. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is seriously inhibited by the floors and ceilings arrangement? Some authorities do not get resources from other sources, so is it not understandable that they feel obliged to charge high levels of council tax to rectify matters? Should not something be done to overcome the financial problems created by the previous Administration? In that way, authorities that have suffered can begin to put things right.
	Finally, can we have a full debate on this topic in future, as 39 minutes of this statement were taken up by Front-Bench spokesmen, before Back-Bench Members were able to contribute?

Nick Raynsford: My hon. Friend accepts that the settlements, both last year and this, have been good for Derbyshire. This year's increase of 6 per cent. follows last year's ceiling settlement of 7.8 per cent.
	I hope that my hon. Friend recognises that it is sensible to give local authorities the opportunity to budget with a degree of certainty, and not to make them subject to short-term fluctuations that can be difficult to cope with. That is why we operate floors and ceilings. Floors to protect authorities from steep reductions in their grant entitlement have to be paid for, which is why the ceiling is needed.
	We recognise that there is deprivation and other problems that my hon. Friend is well aware of in his area. The changes to the grant distribution formula were designed to reflect some of those needs more accurately. The Government are determined to continue in that way, not only through the grant distribution formula but through special grants. In the current year, Derbyshire is receiving £34 million for special needs, many of which are specifically to do with deprivation. We will continue to do all that we can to ensure that such authorities receive decent settlements that enable them to budget prudently and to deliver high-quality services without the need for steep increases in council tax.

Alan Beith: Does the Minister recognise that under this settlement it will be even more difficult to maintain services in districts of large area and small population, particularly in those that last year—for reasons that have still not been explained—got very low settlements of the order of 3 and 4 per cent., such as Alnwick, Berwick and Castle Morpeth? Is he willing to look again at the position of those three districts in Northumberland, the pattern for which was contrary to that of the rest of the county, and to see whether any further help is needed? Castle Morpeth has just had to turn around a major financial difficulty, but it is recognised to be doing so.

Nick Raynsford: I am happy to look into that. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that I do not at present have all the explanations of all the settlements for all authorities. He is right that there were generally very large increases for district councils last year, but that the three councils in his area to which he referred had relatively modest increases. The floor that is in place again this year will protect those authorities and guarantee them increases of at least 2.2 per cent. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be pleased, as I am, that Northumberland county council has a particularly good settlement this year—a 6.2 per cent. increase. I shall look into the issue relating to those district and borough councils, and write to him about the matter.

Alan Whitehead: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his continuing success in bearing down on ring-fencing in local government spending and on the success of his discussions with other Departments on the reducing of pressures—in particular, the collection of rubbish through non-implementation of the landfill trading scheme. However, does my right hon. Friend accept that that deferral will coincide with a projected trebling of the landfill tax escalator next year, so that there will be a combination of pressure and a ring-fenced sum of money from local authorities going in that direction? Is his Department looking positively at how local authorities might be able to manage that change, and has that been reflected in this year's settlement?

Nick Raynsford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks, and I assure him that we shall continue to do all that we can to bear down on unnecessary ring-fencing and to remove any unfunded pressures from local authorities. My hon. Friend highlighted the changes relating to waste management. The postponement of the landfill allowance trading scheme is simply a postponement; it is not a cancellation. We are putting the scheme back by one year, to allow local authorities more opportunity to prepare and so that they can avoid meeting additional costs that will probably be in the order of £10 million this year. Together with my colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we are keen that authorities should have the means to achieve the step change that is necessary in waste management to meet our objectives to reduce the use of, and dependence on, landfill and to ensure more sustainable waste disposal systems.

Patrick McLoughlin: Last year, Derbyshire Dales district council got a very small increase. Most Derbyshire district councils received in excess of £500,000. Derbyshire Dales got an increase of £32,000. What will be the increase for Derbyshire Dales this year?

Nick Raynsford: The three authorities in the area that the hon. Gentleman represents are Derbyshire county council, which has an increase of 6 per cent.; Derbyshire Dales, which has an increase of 2.2 per cent.—the floor; and Amber Valley, which has a similar increase. Both of the latter councils are protected by the floor, and his county council has a good settlement.

Stephen McCabe: I welcome the increase in formula grant of almost 6 per cent. for the people of Birmingham. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real challenge now is to spend the money wisely, that all local authorities must recognise that they have a duty to provide cost-effective and efficient services and that wage inflation, in particular at the higher grades, without mass productivity means less money for services and, inevitably, higher council tax levels?

Nick Raynsford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I, too, am delighted that Birmingham city council will receive a grant increase of 5.9 per cent., following a good settlement of 8 per cent. last year. Birmingham will also benefit from £112 million in special and specific grants designed to help that council meet its responsibilities. As he knows only too well, it has substantial deprivation problems within its boundaries. I wholeheartedly agree that, given a good settlement of that nature, it should be possible for the city council to continue to make progress in improving service delivery and to impose reasonable increases in council tax on Birmingham residents.

Robert Key: Does the Minister agree that the only winner in this miserable settlement is the Treasury? As far as the hard-pressed taxpayers of Wiltshire and Salisbury are concerned, this annual charade is bringing both central and local government into disrepute. It does not really matter whether one has rates, poll tax, council tax or local income tax, so long as the Government refuse to acknowledge the need for a fair contract between them and taxpayers at local level showing where the burden falls, rather than the present system under which duties are imposed that local authorities have to meet when they have little freedom of movement. Until a new system introduces such fairness, we shall continue to have an annual charade in which people have little faith.

Nick Raynsford: The only charade that I see is the extraordinary spectacle of former Ministers in a Government who could offer increases of only about 1 per cent. at best complaining about increases that would have been beyond those authorities' wildest dreams when that Government were in power. That is a bit rich coming from the hon. Gentleman, given that last year Wiltshire had the largest grant increase of any county, 8.9 per cent., and will this year receive a further 5.9 per cent. increase—on the ceiling. Those are very good increases—far beyond what Wiltshire would have had from the Government whom the hon. Gentleman represented.

Michael Jabez Foster: Not only the Liberal Democrats but the Tories seem to believe that money grows on trees, especially when a Labour Government are in power. Last year, under the Tory council, East Sussex had a 20 per cent. increase in council tax, which is wholly unacceptable. At what level will my right hon. Friend tell East Sussex Tories that enough is enough?

Nick Raynsford: I have made it clear in my remarks to local government representatives at various conferences recently, and I make it clear again today, that we take a dim view of authorities that increase their council tax by more than is absolutely necessary to maintain good quality services. We expect them to do much better than the very large increases that a number, including East Sussex, imposed last year. East Sussex has a grant increase of 4.5 per cent. in this settlement, which is a significant increase on last year's settlement. I hope that it will use it prudently. It also has about £32 million in special and specific grant, some of which I hope is destined for my hon. Friend's constituency, which has special problems in the county. I hope that East Sussex, which is improving its social services significantly—that is welcome—will continue to deliver and improve services, and will do so cost effectively with much-reduced demands in the coming year compared with last year.

Mark Francois: Will the Minister confirm that for those shire districts that have received the minimum floor of 2.2 per cent., the settlement is effectively a real-terms cut given the current rate of inflation? Does he also accept that wherever one puts the floors and ceilings for any authority, the amount of money that it ultimately deserves from the Government is largely determined by the grant formula itself? Surely the Government need to revise the new grant formula spending share that they have come up with so that it does not unfairly penalise those authorities in the home counties that are suffering because Labour has deliberately moved resources to assist its friends in the north.

Nick Raynsford: I find it slightly odd that, given that Essex county council is receiving an increase of 5.5 per cent—an above-average increase—in a year when the overall increase is 4.7 per cent., the hon. Gentleman complains that money is going north. It is not. Essex is getting more than the national average. People in the north, including some of my hon. Friends, whose settlements are rather lower, have good reason to complain that money is going south.

Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend has already made it clear that there will be an amending order where census figures have been revised and, as he is aware, the city of Manchester has already had such a revision accepted. However, notwithstanding the amending orders, there is also a cumulative effect, from the ceilings in previous years and other factors, on the next year and succeeding years. Can my right hon. Friend give the House a guarantee that in census-affected local authorities such as Manchester every penny will be restored, not just one year's money?

Nick Raynsford: I know that there have been special issues in Manchester relating to the census. I referred to them in answer to an earlier question, when I made it clear that we will be prepared to issue an amending report once the Office for National Statistics has completed its investigations. If its figures suggest that there should be increased population figures for certain authorities, we shall issue that report.
	Manchester has a good settlement this year: an increase of 5.8 per cent. on top of last year's figure of 6.5 per cent. In addition to the overall settlement, £66.5 million of special grant is going to Manchester, to reflect the particular needs of the community. That is a good settlement and we shall continue to work closely with Manchester city council, which is doing very good work indeed to tackle the problems in its area, to ensure that it continues to improve services cost-effectively.

John Redwood: Will the Minister allow councils to pay a housing-related supplement to teachers in high-cost areas where recruitment and retention are difficult or impossible?

Nick Raynsford: The right hon. Gentleman comes from an area that has benefited from substantial increases in grants. Wokingham received an 8.4 per cent. increase last year and will receive a 5.8 per cent. increase this year. West Berkshire, too, had large increases last year and this year. Those settlements reflect the extra money that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills is putting in to meet education needs. In addition, as the right hon. Member for Wokingham knows well, through schemes such as the starter homes initiative we are helping to provide good quality, value-for-money homes for people in key services, such as teaching, to enable them to have low-cost home ownership options in areas where, as he rightly points out, prices are relatively high.

David Kidney: My right hon. Friend mentioned the transitional funding of £120 million in the education settlement that will be targeted on about one third of local authorities—although, sadly, not the third that are currently at the bottom of the funding league table. He said that there would be £300 million to fund pressures other than those relating to schools. Can he tell us whether any of that will deliberately, as a matter of policy, be directed to the poorest authorities?

Nick Raynsford: That money is being put into the general settlement, so it is not targeted as such. I distinguished between special and specific grants, which are targeted on particular areas, and the general settlement, which is distributed according to the formula. The additional £300 million will go into the formula to ensure that it can be distributed according to various indicators of need—including, obviously, deprivation. I am pleased to say that Staffordshire is receiving a 5.4 per cent. increase in its grant, which is above average, against the national average of 4.7 per cent. I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome that.

Owen Paterson: By what percentage will the costs of local government increase due to statutory demands imposed by central Government?

Nick Raynsford: As I said in the statement, we have adopted an extremely rigorous new burdens doctrine, which requires any additional burdens imposed by central Government on local authorities to be fully funded. That is why I was able to say that we are making a number of changes to ensure that authorities have the means to meet their responsibilities; we are not putting additional burdens on them without those burdens being funded. I gave specific examples in my statement and also indicated how in other matters, such as waste management, where local authorities said that they would have difficulty in meeting their obligations, we have taken action, which I announced this afternoon, to ease those pressures.
	Those are the actions of a Government who are determined to ensure that local authorities have the means to meet their obligations and to do so without unreasonable council tax increases.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We must now proceed. I allowed the statement to overrun to permit a slightly more equal amount of time between Back Benchers and Front Benchers, and I hope that Front Benchers will take note.

Points of Order

Tony Baldry: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to ask that the names of those of us who did not manage to catch your eye this afternoon might be gently remembered when we debate the local government settlement in due course?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Absolutely. We shall certainly do our best to bear that in mind. I appreciate that many hon. Members in the Chamber were disappointed this afternoon.

Jonathan Sayeed: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Prime Minister informed the House that trade between the United Kingdom and the United States was £2 billion a year. During Prime Minister's questions, he revised the figure from £2 billion a year to £2,000 billion a year. As neither figure is correct, will Mr. Speaker be asking the Prime Minister to return to the Chamber to correct the record?

Eric Forth: Yes, he must—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker will have heard and will no doubt read the comments, but he is not responsible for the answers of any individual Minister in the House.

Jenny Tonge: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Now that George Bush runs the foreign policy of this Government, why is he not coming to the House to make a statement?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.

BILL PRESENTED

Corporal Punishment of Children (Abolition)

Mr. David Hinchliffe, supported by Mr. Hilton Dawson, Julie Morgan, Jane Griffiths, Dr. Rudi Vis, Geraint Davies, Mr. Paul Burstow, Dr. Jenny Tonge, Mr. Mike Hancock, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd and Dr. Richard Taylor, presented a Bill to amend the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to remove any existing defence which justifies the corporal punishment of children and to give children the same protection as adults under the law on assault: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 185].

First Aid Training in Schools

Bob Russell: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require first aid training to be given to children in schools as part of the National Curriculum.
	The Bill would save many hundreds of lives every year, produce annual savings to the national health service of hundreds of millions of pounds and result in a better quality of life for all age groups throughout the land. It is a modest Bill with anything but a modest outcome: lives saved; money saved. Whatever the cost of providing first-aid training in schools, it would be petty cash compared with the huge financial dividend that would be generated for the public purse and it would save lives every day.
	I acknowledge that teachers have a heavy work load and that many people in education feel that the national curriculum is already over-burdened. However, my Bill would not add to the burden of individual teachers unless they were already qualified first-aiders, because first-aid training would be undertaken by qualified first-aiders drawn from wider society, primarily volunteer members of St. John Ambulance and the Red Cross. I pay tribute to both organisations and to other voluntary groups that provide first-aid cover at a wide range of events, many of which would not take place if their organisers could not afford to buy in medical cover.
	First-aid groups could do with more volunteers. Over time, my Bill would create a large pool of qualified first-aiders from which, it is hoped, many would become volunteers with St. John Ambulance and the Red Cross. In the short term, it is possible that there may be insufficient qualified first-aiders to train every child in school, so I realise that it may be necessary for the Bill's implementation to be phased, but the sooner the better in as many schools as it is possible to recruit qualified first-aiders to commence training.
	My Bill sets out the framework. The precise details of implementation will emerge as a result of consultation with all the relevant bodies, including such considerations as what should be taught at what age group, the frequency of the training and so on. Today I am talking about the principle of the Bill.
	I am grateful to St. John Ambulance, whose personnel have helped me to prepare my Bill. It believes that everyone should have life-saving skills, and it stresses that that could be achieved over time if everyone learned first aid at school. St. John says that currently fewer than 10 per cent. of schoolchildren in England are taught first aid—in many cases by teachers who have been trained by St. John, using materials provided by St. John Ambulance. That training, however, is purely at the discretion of the school and there is no obligation to provide first-aid training. My Bill would make it a requirement.
	What I propose is not revolutionary. There are already aspects of the national curriculum in England that enable schools to teach first aid. St. John Ambulance's young lifesaver award links to the personal, social and health education syllabuses at both key stages 2 and 3, and to the citizenship syllabuses for key stages 3 and 4. The most direct link is probably with key stage 3, at which pupils should be taught basic emergency aid procedures and where to get help and support. That is better than nothing, but just think how much better it would be for all concerned if all children were taught first aid throughout their school years, starting as young as five, when they might learn how to react to a nosebleed, and continuing through to their early teens, when resuscitation could be accomplished.
	The national healthy school standard says that, as a minimum, a school should provide opportunities for all pupils to develop health skills in relation to first aid. My Bill would take that concept forward and make it a requirement.
	I am delighted to inform the House that in my constituency the Thomas Lord Audley school and language college has proposals, announced only last week, to establish a first aid club. Students would aim to get a recognised certificate from either the Red Cross or St. John Ambulance. It is felt that
	"students will feel empowered, capable, confident, safety aware (especially when working in workshops)".
	It is also felt that the training would relate to existing curriculum subjects, ranging from modular science to food technology and from biology to physical education.
	That school can see the wider benefits that first-aid training produces. If every school had first-aid training as part of the national curriculum, the benefits to the nation would be immense. Mr. Mark Allan of Colchester St. John Ambulance told me that
	"first aid training gives young people life skills and confidence, making them better citizens".
	St. John Ambulance nationally trains 250,000 people every year in first-aid skills. Free first-aid training has been offered to teachers in the past. Each year, a number of schools at primary and secondary levels participate in the St. John Ambulance national schools first aid competition. Thus the concept of first-aid training in schools is not new.
	I opened my speech by saying that hundreds of deaths could be prevented each year if qualified first-aiders were able to intervene. St. John Ambulance goes further and says that thousands of deaths could be prevented. Indeed, research has shown that perhaps 1,000 people a year who currently die as a result of injuries sustained in road crashes would be saved if first aid were applied before the arrival of paramedics. It is considered that a significant proportion of the 300,000 people who die from heart attacks would have a much-increased chance of survival if first aid could be applied at an early stage.
	Alongside the important saving of lives, first-aid training would also reduce visits to overstretched accident and emergency departments by people whose injuries did not warrant hospital attention, and likewise reduce visits to doctors' surgeries if a qualified first-aider could more easily and more quickly deal with such minor matters at home or at their place of work. A pack of frozen peas placed on a sprained ankle is more appropriate than sitting in an A and E department for hours—a fact confirmed to me by family doctor Chris Hall, the current mayor of Colchester.
	St. John Ambulance has made the following statement:
	"Apart from the obvious benefit of equipping children with life-saving skills, first aid training in schools has other positive effects. The training promotes good citizenship. It also raises awareness of accident prevention issues as well as equipping pupils with the skills to be able to cope with accident and emergency situations should these arise, making the school environment a safer place and building confidence in young people."
	I would go further and say that first-aid training in schools from an early age would make children more aware of what makes their body work—what is good for it and what is bad for it. Obesity is a growing problem, literally, with the number of obese children increasing every year and more children suffering from diabetes as a consequence. Asthma is also on the increase. Today's young people are, collectively, less fit than their parents and grandparents were at the same age. For the first time in 100 years, we are looking at the prospect of falling life expectancy. A medical time-bomb is ticking away. Unless urgent action is taken, today's schoolchildren will suffer heart, mobility and breathing problems at an earlier age than is currently the case, throwing ever more burdens on the national health service.
	If youngsters were involved in first-aid training as part of the national curriculum, it would make them more aware of the need for healthy food and healthy lifestyles. It would hopefully discourage involvement with illegal drugs, smoking and binge drinking. It would certainly lead to greater personal awareness—social inclusion would be achieved.
	My Bill is all about saving lives and improving the lives of today's children. I commend it to the House.

Eric Forth: This is one of those occasions when a Bill sounds good and looks good and, as the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) is praying for it, how could one possibly resist it? Well, I will do my best, because I have been round this track many times in a former existence.
	The school curriculum is a precious and valuable thing. It defines in broad terms the resources available to our schools and to our teachers, and it forces on us priorities in education, which is a very good thing. We are talking about deciding how we allocate chalk time, if I may put it that way, because there are so many demands on the time and skills of our schools and our teachers.
	I hope it goes without saying that we all agree that the maximum priority should be given in classrooms to giving our young people the fundamentals of the skills that they will need for their lives and their jobs—reading, writing and numbers are the obvious ones. I hope that history, geography and physical education would still be included in that list. Once one gets any way beyond that basic list, one runs into real difficulties and challenges about the allocation of educational time. In fact, many would argue—I am probably one of them—that until we can demonstrate that every young person of school age has fully mastered those basic skills of reading, writing, numbers and communication, we should not allow ourselves to be tempted to bring in further such material to challenge them for school and classroom time, yet that is exactly what the hon. Gentleman's Bill seeks to do.
	I have heard many claims made over many years for other matters to be imported into the curriculum, and many of them are indeed of great value. Environmental awareness, civics and road safety would all contribute very substantially to young people's lifestyles, and, indeed, life expectancy. I would add another one, which has some relevance to the hon. Gentleman's argument—safety in the home. He argued that many lives could be saved by the measures that he outlined. I doubt that. I would argue that as many lives could be saved if we taught safety in the home. Many deaths are caused by accidents in the home, which could be avoided and certainly reduced if we were to spend time in our schools and classrooms teaching young people about safety in the home.
	This is not an uncompetitive business. At any time there are well-meaning people who argue, for very good reasons, that their subject should get priority within the national curriculum—that what they want to see imparted should be imparted to our young people in competition, because it inevitably is in competition, with the basics of reading, writing and number work. That is the first problem that we must resolve in our minds.
	The next problem is a more practical one, and the hon. Gentleman, in fairness to him, was honest enough to admit it: whether we can identify a sufficient number of people within education to impart these skills to our school pupils. He generously conceded that that was not the case.
	Again, one immediately runs into the problems of allocation and prioritisation because we would have to decide which age group, which class or, indeed, which school would get the benefit of what the hon. Gentleman claims before the others did so. He did not say how long it would take for the cumulative process for which he argued to come to fruition and to spread the benefits that he claimed for that type of education to all pupils.
	I suppose that the next question that we have to ask ourselves is at what point does perhaps a very young person who has received an element of first-aid training become remotely competent to give emergency treatment to someone who is suffering in some way or another? I must say that I am nervous about the thought of young, partially trained people believing that they can do good to someone who is in medical difficulty, given the possibility, at the very least, that that could make things worse, not better. That must surely be a very distinct risk.
	In an ideal world, if every pupil could be made fully competent in first aid, perhaps the outcome that the hon. Gentleman argued for might be achieved, but I am not sure that we could achieve that outcome, even if we had a complete set of qualified teachers and all the classroom and educational time in the world. My fear is that, if we fell short of that, there would be a danger of the Bill being harmful, rather than beneficial.
	The hon. Gentleman said, rather charmingly, in a rather Liberal Democrat sort of way, that the details of all this will emerge. In other words, yet again, we are being asked to sign a Liberal Democrat blank cheque: "Let's legislate now, because it sounds good, and let's not worry about the details because someone else will fill them in." That is simply not good enough. An hon. Member cannot come to the House and say, "I've got a jolly good"—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Too much conversation is going on in the Chamber.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your help, but I am usually up to it.
	With such a complex matter, an hon. Member cannot simply say, "Here's a Bill. It sounds good. Sign up to it, and don't worry; we'll fill in the details later." That is simply not enough for a number of reasons, not least that it was not made at all clear whether gaining the alleged benefits of such education would be voluntary or compulsory. Even for the transitional phase—starting from when we have not enough qualified people, as the hon. Gentleman admitted, to some unspecified time in the future when we may—we were not told whether it would be voluntary or compulsory for our young people to learn such skills in the interim.
	Nor was any mention made of the additional costs. Even if one were to assume that there would be no increase in the number of teachers or in the requirement for classrooms, what about the equipment and materials that would undoubtedly be required properly to impart such information to generations of young people? There must surely be a cost and a budget implication, but again—perhaps to no one's surprise—that was not mentioned at all.
	The hon. Gentleman implied that just petty cash—I think that those were his words—would be involved and that, given the enormity of the education budget, if we merely slip in something else no one will notice. He should tell that to school governors, teachers and parents, because I am sure that they would need much more convincing than he has been able to impart today.
	So, all in all, the Bill is well meaning—that is true—and its heart is in the right place, but I fear that, as with so many other such measures, it has been introduced simply in hope rather than expectation. If the House is to take such things seriously, I suggest that, if it wills the Bill, it should then find ways to will the means in terms not just of money, but of classroom time and educational priorities. That is the only responsible way in which one can approach such a Bill. I hope that the House will be responsible and that it will join me in saying—sadly, with regret—no to the Bill today.
	Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Bob Russell, Mr. David Amess, Mrs. Annette L. Brooke, Sandra Gidley, Mr. Ivan Henderson, Lady Hermon, Kate Hoey, Mr. Alan Hurst, Mr. Andrew Rosindell, Mr. Simon Thomas, Dr. Jenny Tonge and Angela Watkinson.

First Aid Training in Schools

Bob Russell accordingly presented a Bill to require first aid training to be given to children in schools as part of the national curriculum: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 186].

Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill (Programme) (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 7th May 2003—
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	(1) Proceedings on a motion to disagree with Lords Amendment No.1 shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments at this day's sitting;
	(2) Remaining proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
	Subsequent stages
	(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question put.
	(4) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Gillian Merron.]
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 380, Noes 210.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Orders of the Day

Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 77, 78, 90, 217 and 218, which are to be considered today. If the House agrees to these Lords amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 1
	 — 
	NHS foundation trusts

Lords amendment: No. 1, leave out clause 1.

John Reid: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3, Lords amendment No. 4 and the Government motion to disagree thereto and Government amendment (a) to the words restored, Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 55, Lords amendment No. 56 and Government amendment (a) thereto, Lords amendment No. 57 and Government amendment (a) thereto, Lords amendment No. 58, Lords amendment No. 59 and Government amendment (a) thereto, Lords amendments Nos. 60 to 64, Lords amendment No. 161 and the Government motion to disagree thereto and Government amendments (a) to (bb) to the words restored, Lords amendments Nos. 162 to 193 and 227, and the Government motions to disagree to Lords amendments Nos. 5, 26, 28 and 29.

John Reid: Lords amendment No. 1 would leave out clause 1. Let me put it simply: it attempts to wreck the Bill that has been sent from this House.
	The Bill represents the next important stage in improving and revitalising our national health service. Let me make it plain right from the start that, to Labour Members, that means a national health service built on the founding principle that everyone in this country should have equal access to health care free at the point of delivery—a principle that will be defended and protected as long as this Government are in power.
	Already over the past few years—and, indeed, into the next few years—the Government are making the largest-ever investment and largest-ever injection of finance into the national health service. That is not for one, two or three years, but for five years. Simultaneously, we have improved and will continue to improve and modernise the national health service, reforming the way in which health care is delivered in this country to the benefit of patients. This is already bringing significant results in health care. All the main indicators of waiting times are now lower than they were in 1997, when we inherited an under-invested and impoverished health service from the previous Government.
	For instance, deaths from our two biggest killers are down dramatically. Deaths from cancer are down 10 per cent. in the last few years and death from heart disease are down by no less than 19 per cent.—a dramatic and significant reduction in the scandalous figures that we inherited. In addition, what we have already done can be seen by the additional 55,000 nurses and 14,000 doctors and by the largest building programme in the history of the national health service.

Ian Gibson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real changes in cancer services have come from the 34 cancer networks that have been involved with patients and right through to doctors, pharmacists and so on? The networks have crossed institutional barriers and they are on their way now. Any interference with that would destroy much of the solidarity that has been built up among many of the work force in the health service.

John Reid: I agree and pay tribute to that. Nothing we are suggesting today would cut across that. My hon. Friend points out the efforts that have been made and the results that the cancer networks have achieved. Without undue immodesty, I think that we are able to claim as a Government that the results are at least partly due to the extra £570 million a year for cancer services and the 30 per cent. increase in the number of consultants since we took office. There are 900 more cancer consultants, so we already bringing about significant benefits to patients. I believe that that is a significant start, but it is not enough. It is not nearly enough to bring the quality of care that those who depend on the national health service should have.
	We said in our last manifesto, which we placed before the people of this country, that decentralisation of power to front-line staff is an essential part of the future national health service. It is an integral part of giving patients the power, the information, the quality of service and the degree of choice that they expect from their national health service today and that has hitherto been available only to those rich enough to buy quality, quick access, sensitivity and personal health care outside the national health service.
	The Opposition in the other place have completely rejected the principle of handing power in the national health service to front-line staff. In doing so, they have gone far beyond long-established practice. Lords amendment No. 1 and Lords amendment No. 161, which would leave out schedule 1, are not revising amendments; they are wrecking amendments. The Government are proposing to accept the vast majority of the revising amendments agreed in the other place, but the main question before us today is not about sensible scrutiny but about whether the Tories and Liberals, in the main in the upper House, will succeed in overturning the majority will of the House of Commons.

David Hinchliffe: My right hon. Friend refers to long-established practice. I have been a member of the Labour party for many years and it has been long-established practice to develop policy within the party—at constituency and conference level—but we have not had that with this issue. We have not had Green Papers, White Papers or any consideration at all. There has been no scrutiny at all of this issue in the Commons. In view of the way in which this matter has been treated in the Commons, is it not unreasonable to suggest that somehow the Lords have behaved unconstitutionally?

John Reid: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend meant this, but I would not, with due respect to the other place, ever draw comparison between our democratic methods inside the Labour party and the inherited privilege vested in the other place. He will have noticed that I voted—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but I voted for abolition. Those on the Opposition Front Bench have got another thing wrong.
	I would not draw such an invidious comparison, but the other place has gone totally against the central element in clause 1. It has not refined or amended it, and that central principle has been the subject of debate and controversy and the Commons has decided on the matter after that debate and controversy. If that principle is rejected, it will go far beyond anything that we have been prepared to tolerate, even from an unelected second Chamber.

David Cameron: For clarification, will the right hon. Gentleman set out whether there was a specific pledge in the Labour manifesto about foundation hospitals?

John Reid: There was a specific pledge in the Labour party manifesto to decentralise power to the frontline of the national health service. I know that the hon. Gentleman is interested in, and deeply committed to, the process inside the Labour party. We know that the Conservative party has extremely democratic ways of making policy—and choosing leaders, incidentally. The way in which leaders emerge in the Conservative party is paralleled only by the selection of the Chinese leadership.
	At least my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) has a deep interest in, and commitment to, a democratic discussion of such matters. If he is asking me whether I think, in retrospect, that we could have discussed the process better and more widely, the answer is yes. Therefore, I hope that the fact that our party and Government are about to embark on perhaps the widest consultation that we have ever undertaken is an indication that we have learned some lessons from the process. However, we are judging today not only the process but the merits of the case and the pledge that we made in our manifesto. That is what I am putting to the House today and I hope to receive support from the Government Benches.

Lynne Jones: What will be the impact on national patient booking systems, electronic patient records and electronic prescribing if foundation trusts are able to opt out of national NHS information technology systems?

John Reid: There is no indication whatsoever that any hospital with or without foundation status would benefit from doing that. It is possible for people to jump off Tower bridge—all things are theoretically possible—but there is not one shred of evidence that there would be any incentive to opt out of what will be, by any standards, the biggest ever IT project. Indeed, the introduction of the project will mean that for the first time in history patients inside the NHS will not be referred to a hospital by their doctor and told to go home and wait for instructions on when and where to attend, without any consultation with them. The IT system that we are introducing will, from December 2005, not only allow for consultation with patients so that they have an option of which hospital to attend, but allow them to book online. Such a quality service has previously been commandeered only by the rich of this country, but we shall extend it to people who are dependent on the NHS.

John Redwood: rose—

Tim Yeo: rose—

John Reid: I shall give way, democratically, to the right hon. Gentleman on the Back Benches first.

John Redwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us which of the freedoms that he will grant to foundation hospitals he thinks they will use, and how will that improve things?

John Reid: Yes, indeed. I was in Birmingham recently, and I commend the authority and the hospital that I visited. It had managed to build two new wards with 80 beds to assist people in that area. The building process took five months from start to finish, but the consultation process to get permission for the building took not five months but 10 times five months. A local national health service will be able to take such a decision locally, thus increasing efficiency and delivering a better quality of service than before.

Stephen Dorrell: rose—

Tim Yeo: rose—

John Reid: I shall go for seniority this time and give way to the Front-Bench spokesman.

Tim Yeo: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way because my intervention is entirely helpful to him. I appreciate that he has been quite busy recently, so he might not have had time to study in detail the Bill and the proceedings during its passage through both Houses of Parliament. To help him to respond to the question asked by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones), the Bill does not give foundation trusts the power to opt out of the incoming IT system. The Secretary of State was clearly unaware of that point.

John Reid: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new post, in which he will spend half his time on the national health service. If he thinks that I have difficulty coping with it, it is no doubt a sign of his innate capacity to think about and embrace larger subjects than anyone else that he is able to cope with health and education. It is an illustration of the Conservative party's priorities that it has appointed half a shadow Minister for education and half a shadow Minister for health, but two chairmen have been appointed to sort out the party.
	The whole point of passing down power to hospitals with foundation status is to give them greater freedom to respond quickly to the needs and ambitions of today's patients.

Stephen Dorrell: rose—

John Reid: I shall make a little progress before I give way to the right hon. Gentleman because I want to respond to the helpful intervention by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo). I fully understand why the Conservatives are opposing our plans. It is not because they want to improve the national health service more than us, because that is one of the great promises—such as, "I will love you all the more for it in the morning", or, "I'm a Conservative and I love the health service more than you do"—that we have come to look at askance. They oppose the plans because they are frightened of the political consequences of the improvements. [Laughter.] I must tell the hon. Gentleman that his predecessor, who has gone on to become one of the two chairmen of the Conservative party, put that in explicit four-letter terms. He said that if we managed to carry out the improvements, the Conservative party's plans to run down the national health service would be flummoxed—I think that that was the word that he used. That is true, so the Tories oppose the measure because they know that as we succeed in improving the NHS, their attempts to undermine and attack it will have less effect. Their policy of cutting investment and attacking equality of access to health services will fail. Just as they opposed the formation of the national health service, they now oppose the reformation of our national health service because it stands for everything in which they do not believe. The reforms stand in the way of their alternative plan: to force people toward the private sector.

Stephen Dorrell: Rather than knocking down paper tigers and talking about why we oppose the Bill, will the Secretary of State return to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)? The Secretary of State cited the example of a hospital that, as a foundation trust hospital with new freedoms, would be allowed greater access to capital so that it could move quickly to build a new facility. Will he confirm that if such a hospital did that under the Bill, given that the capital allocation will be ring-fenced and the Treasury will put a ceiling on it, the money provided for such building would come at the expense of non-foundation trust hospitals?

John Reid: The right hon. Gentleman speaks as if he is making a huge revelation. Of course there is a pot from which hospitals and other elements of the national health service—foundation trusts or otherwise—must take their money. The difference between what is happening under this Government and what happened under 20 years of the last Conservative Government—the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for part of that time—is that we are making the biggest ever increase to the pot of money in the history of the national health service. When people in the NHS want to build, they now know that that is possible. When we came into power, nearly half of the NHS's buildings were older than the NHS itself. Under the plans for capital allocations during this term of government, almost half the buildings will be less than 15 years old by 2010. That is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question.

Michael Weir: rose—

John Reid: I want to make progress.
	The creation of NHS foundation trusts is part of the process of moving from an NHS controlled from Whitehall to an NHS in which standards and inspections are national, but delivery and accountability are local, with more diverse provision, offering more choice for patients. That agenda will not go away. Decentralisation is a necessary prerequisite of responding more personally and sensitively to the extra power for patients which the Government intend to deliver. It will form a major part of our programme for the next few years.

Clare Short: Most of us agree that there should be more decentralisation in the health service, as we said in our manifesto, but many of us object to the current proposal because it allows the most privileged hospitals to decentralise. Giving them greater authority and more privileges will lead to growing inequality. Why not decentralise across the system?

John Reid: First, with the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend, she is not exactly correct. The proposal gives the first foundation status opportunities not to the most privileged hospitals but to the best performing hospitals. Some of them are in more socially affluent areas, but others are not. Many good performing hospitals are in relatively underprivileged catchment areas. Secondly, and importantly, even if my right hon. Friend's premise were correct, her conclusion would be wrong because we do not intend to limit the opportunity to the first wave. Within four years we intend to raise every hospital in the country to the level at which we can free them from some of the central restrictions. That is one compromise that we made after discussions with my right hon. and hon. Friends. Our initial intention was to give foundation status to only a few hospitals, but after consultations with colleagues inside and outside the Government we agreed to extend that opportunity to everyone within four years.
	NHS foundation trusts will be established as a new form of common ownership—a new public benefit organisation. They will still be part of the NHS family, with the purpose of providing NHS services to NHS patients. The care they provide to NHS patients will be, as I said, delivered on the basis of need, not ability to pay, and will be free at the point of use. The foundation principles and values of the NHS will be protected, but the system by which that is delivered will be decentralised and modernised. They will be locked into public ownership, which is the main thing that Opposition Members oppose. They know that a thriving local hospital, owned by local people in a way in which national services have never been owned before, will defend itself politically against a future Conservative Government's plans to privatise the NHS. That is what Opposition Members do not like about foundation hospitals.

Desmond Turner: I greatly sympathise with my right hon. Friend's argument that trusts need to be freed of much of the bureaucracy that gets in the way of their effective operation. However, does he agree that as most of those directives on bureaucracy emanate directly from his Department in Whitehall, we do not need an Act of Parliament to deal with it?

John Reid: It does not need an Act of Parliament to deal with all of it; it does need an Act of Parliament to deal with some of it. My hon. Friend is right that our proposals do not go as far as I should like. We have compromised. I have no shame in talking about compromise. We have compromised with colleagues inside and outside the party—people at the front line—to get a balance. The idea that we have not gone as far as the Conservatives would like, so they will vote against our moving in the direction they theoretically want us to go in, is sheer opportunistic hypocrisy.
	We agreed, for instance, that all foundation trusts must pledge themselves to the long-time negotiated "Agenda for Change" with the health unions. That compromise benefits all workers inside and outside foundation trusts.

Alice Mahon: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

John Reid: If my hon. Friend lets me make progress, I shall I try to take her intervention later.
	I want to illustrate how far we have gone in our discussions on compromise. We will insist on reinserting the statutory limit on the proportion of private patients treated in NHS foundation trusts, removed by the Opposition in another place. We have agreed to limit the borrowing powers, as explained earlier, of NHS foundation trusts through a prudential borrowing code. We have compromised on, and listened to, a number of concerns. Those are just a few examples.
	In addition, we have tabled amendments, because people have raised the issue, on the way in which the membership of the trusts will be drawn up—that is, the membership from which the governance will be vested. There are also amendments on the sub-division of the electorates on the board of governors, the safeguarding of patient information and, for English hospitals, the extension of the public constituency to Wales in certain cases where that would be relevant.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Reid: I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) and try to get around to my other hon. Friends.

Jon Owen Jones: I wish my right hon. Friend had not made so many compromises, but I understand why he has done so. Will he remind some of our hon. Friends that the Government, who have invested 70 per cent. more funding in the health service, have produced a better health service? By comparison with the investment made, however, we are making slow progress. Some of our colleagues need to understand that with that investment comes a need to reform; otherwise, we will not make the changes that our electorate so desire.

John Reid: I agree with my hon. Friend. I have no doubt about the sincerity of the commitment of every Labour Member to the NHS. The debate is worth while, but those who believe that increasing capacity and putting more money into the health service will be enough are mistaken. Unless that is accompanied by reform, we will not safeguard the NHS for the next 50 years. For any given level of capacity we need to increase the quality of output, increase the speed of delivery of operations and give patients more information and choice over what they are doing. If we are to do that, we must decentralise the delivery of health care so that the local units, whether they be GPs or hospitals, can respond to the patients themselves when they exercise that new choice. All of that is about defending the NHS from both sociological changes and Opposition Members who would destroy it.

Kate Hoey: I take the Secretary of State's point about patient choice and devolved powers, but surely the crux of the matter is that the purse strings are held by the primary care trusts. The manoeuvring and changing is not necessary. If we were to democratise the system, we should have started with the PCTs.

John Reid: My hon. Friend is a little unfair. First, the PCTs are a huge decentralisation of power. Some 75 per cent. of our money goes through them. Secondly, I hope that the PCTs will not stop at the level of decentralisation that they have already achieved, but will involve GPs and others in the primary care sector in planning their health commissioning. Thirdly, patient forums are involved in the PCTs. However, even if we managed to democratise the formalities, giving power to patients is more than formal democracy. It means giving them a real choice. It is hypocrisy to argue that such choice can be provided while cutting the capacity of the NHS or diverting money to subsidise the 5 per cent. who are rich enough to buy their own operations. It is not hypocrisy to ask for a further degree of choice while putting in extra capacity, as we are doing.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Reid: I genuinely must make some progress. Hon. Members will understand that if I do not, the accusation will be made that I have taken up too much time.
	I have illustrated some of the compromises that we have made, but I have an important reassurance for hon. Members. Since I became Secretary of State for Health, some colleagues have specifically asked me to reassure them that we will learn from the experience of the NHS foundation trusts set up in the first waves in 2004. Some colleagues have expressed concern that we will not be in a position to learn from the experience of the first NHS foundation trusts before the rest of the NHS can apply for that status. They have asked me to explain our willingness to review and to learn as we go along. I have listened to those colleagues and I want to make it clear that we will of course review the experience of the first waves. Indeed, we will have particular opportunity to do so in the 12 months between the end of the first waves in the autumn of 2004 and the autumn of 2005. We will be able to carry out just such a review in more detail at that time. I will ask the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, which is of course accountable to Parliament and not to me, to assist me in that review. Obviously, during that period, I would not pass on any new application for a new NHS foundation trust to the regulator. That is the most forthright, succinct and clear indication that I can give to all hon. Members that we are prepared to learn the lessons—the obstacles as well as the opportunities—of the new foundation status as we go along. I hope that that reassures those colleagues who have asked me about that point.

Joan Walley: I accept that my right hon. Friend is looking to find some way to build on the wonderful work that has been done by Labour in the NHS, but why do we not learn the lesson of the resource allocations working party and the inequalities that there have been in health? I am looking for some assurances about "Agenda for Change". In chapter 8 of that document, it says that foundation trusts will be able to pay their staff far more than other hospitals. That will increase health inequalities, not decrease them. What will he do to ensure that the ability of foundation trusts to poach staff will not undermine the good work that the Government have done?

John Reid: With respect, my hon. Friend is misreading chapter 8. "Agenda for Change" was agreed after two years of discussion with all the trade unions involved. It includes a flexibility to pay staff above the minimum agreed levels, but that does not apply only to foundation hospitals. It applies to all hospitals. If my hon. Friend is saying that some hospitals attract staff because they are perceived to be better than other hospitals—because they are teaching hospitals, have a better reputation or are more convenient—that has not been instigated by foundation trust status. It has always been the case. However, for the first time in the NHS we have an agreement worked out in great detail over two years—largely by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, and I pay tribute to him—that involves 1.3 million people, from porters and cleaners right up through nurses and doctors. It even includes consultants, who for the first time have signed a contract to pledge a significant increase in the amount of face time that they have with NHS patients.

Andrew Lansley: rose—

John Reid: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman because he has long been a supporter of foundation trusts. I trust that he will vote with us tonight.

Andrew Lansley: I will vote as I did on 8 July. The Secretary of State should listen carefully to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley). Addenbrooke's hospital in my constituency will be in the first wave of foundation trusts. It wants to implement "Agenda for Change" and it knows that as a foundation trust it will be an early implementer of the new funding flows. It will get additional money to implement "Agenda for Change" at an early stage.

John Reid: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the performance of his local hospital and on the support that he has given it in its quest for foundation status. I am sorry that his promotion means that he is in a straitjacket when it comes to voting tonight for what he believes in. I am sure that my hon. Friends will remark on the discipline that has been imposed in the attempt to inflict a defeat on the Government tonight. Perhaps they will bear that in mind. I am afraid that I have to correct the hon. Gentleman factually. It is not necessarily the case that foundation hospitals will implement "Agenda for Change" prior to everyone else. We are working on the guidelines on that point at present. [Interruption.]
	I will try—if I can do so through the noise from Opposition Front Benchers—to sum up our position tonight. We face an important, crucial and controversial—because it is radical—vote in the House.

Joan Humble: Will my right hon. Friend give way on the subject of his important announcement?

John Reid: If it is an announcement that my hon. Friend will support the Government tonight, I will gladly give way.

Joan Humble: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Will he clarify the important statement he made a moment ago about reviewing the first waves of foundation hospitals before making progress? He used the plural "waves", so can he clarify how many hospitals will be involved and whether he will come back to the House with a report before making an announcement about more foundation hospitals in the future?

John Reid: It is anticipated that the first waves will start in 2004 and will consist of two parts. One has already been publicly announced and includes 29 hospitals, falling to 25. The second part will include 30 hospitals or fewer, so the round figure is about 50. As for reporting to the House, I have always made it plain that we will review the situation as we go along, because it is the study of modern society that has led us to the conclusions we have reached about the need to give patients better information, quality, power and choice and, therefore, the need to decentralise. It would therefore be wholly contrary to our approach and intuition to say that we shall plough ahead irrespective of any obstacles or difficulties we encounter. We are prepared to review as we go along.
	My hon. Friend is right, however. As I said, there is a period of approximately 12 months between autumn 2004 and autumn 2005 in which it would appropriate to carry out a specific review of what is happening. I shall ask CHAI to assist in that review. The commission, which is established under the Bill, is responsible and accountable not to me but to Parliament, so any report it produces will be presented to Parliament. I hope that that answers my hon. Friend's point.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Reid: In fairness, I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), who has tried to intervene twice.

Helen Jones: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Will he clarify the remit of any such review? Will it include the effects of the change on the whole health community and not be only a review of foundation trusts?

John Reid: My hon. Friend tempts me to hold a review of the workings of the whole system, which is neither what I said, nor what I intend. We are instigating one of the most radical transformations within the NHS, but that is only a part of a much wider agenda. One of our problems all along has been that foundation trust status has not been put in context. When it is seen in the context of the vast increase in capacity and of the reform of the system as a whole—in particular, reversing the NHS engine and navigation system away from central diktat and toward giving patients the sort of power that they have previously had only in the private sector—it is easier to understand why we have to decentralise.
	This is a radical move, so we are duty bound to investigate and oversee the changes as we proceed. I have said that, to reassure colleagues, I shall, in the period between autumn 2004 and autumn 2005, call in assistance to examine the difficulties, challenges and experiences of the early foundation trusts, which will be to our benefit and enable us better to drive forward improvements in the NHS. To assist, I shall call in CHAI, which is responsible to Parliament, not to me. I think and hope that that will give a great deal of reassurance to many of our colleagues, who have continually asked us to reassure them that we will not proceed willy-nilly, regardless of experience.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Reid: If my hon. Friends will forgive me, I really have to draw my remarks to a conclusion. The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), and I will be more than happy to respond to points raised during the debate. For now, let me take a last few interventions, so that no one is offended.

Gordon Prentice: I do not think it is right to experiment on so many NHS trusts. It does not satisfy me at all that a huge number of trusts are to be subject to audit. My question is this: given that this is such a radical transformation, why is it not possible to pilot the scheme in a small number of trusts across the country?

John Reid: First, we would still need legislation to do that. Secondly—I say this with all due respect to my hon. Friend—when it was first suggested that we might carry out a limited number of pilots, we were immediately accused by my hon. Friend of creating a two-tier health system. I accept it as a consolation of my job that, in a sense, we cannot win. If we pilot in a small number of trusts, we are accused of privatisation or creating a two-tier system; if, for the sake of equity, we propose that the entire service be affected, we are told that that is far too radical a plan for a timid beast like the Labour party to contemplate. When we formed the NHS, it was a radical vision of amazing proportions and, of course, it involved risk. There is a degree of risk in everything—I do not deny that for a minute. That is precisely why we shall proceed with a degree of caution and in waves, and why I have reassured my hon. Friends that I shall genuinely examine the experience of the early trusts. However, I am not prepared to go back to the beginning and say we shall allow only 10 foundation trusts to be created, and have all the arguments about equity again.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Reid: I will give way, first, to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), then to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), who has been trying to intervene for a while. Then, I must conclude.

Richard Burden: May I take my right hon. Friend back to the issue of membership? I am one of those who have doubts about aspects of the proposal without necessarily endorsing some of the more cataclysmic opinions that have been expressed about foundation trusts generally. However, if foundation trusts are to achieve the objectives that he has stated, is it not vital that their membership base be as wide as possible? He says that there will be an amendment that will allow foundation trusts automatically to accept patients and staff as members, unless they opt out. I welcome that, but I am worried by the wording, which is that the trusts may do so. Will he make it clear that, unless people opt out, automatic membership will be expected, and that membership will not be something that they can opt in or out of, as they see fit?

John Reid: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that there is a problem. There is no doubt about that. That is one of the risks involved. Having listened to my hon. Friend and other colleagues, we have decided that for patients and staff it will be an opt-out procedure. In other words, there will automatically be a reasonably representative basis of staff and patients from the beginning to stop particular groups, political or otherwise, trying to gain control of an asset of the local community and of the nation for their own benefits.
	On the question of extending the idea of opt-out to the whole constituency, I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that there are some places where the local constituency may be huge. Therefore we have not compelled trusts so to do. However, we have said that we would expect them, unless there are very good reasons not to, to follow the same procedures of opt-out as would otherwise be the case. We shall examine carefully whether they have such reasons.

Alice Mahon: My right hon. Friend and I were in the House when an experiment was carried out in Scotland to decide whether to impose the poll tax, with disastrous results. He has tried to say today that the opposition is coming from a few Back Benchers and the Tories. However, is it not true that most of the unions, staff organisations, workers, the royal colleges, the Society of Radiographers, physiotherapists, the general public in the latest poll—61 per cent.—pensioners, including Halifax pensioners, and the King's Fund are opposed to the proposed experiment? Has my right hon. Friend ever heard of the expression, "Everybody is out of step except our Johnny"?

John Reid: It is true, to name a few, that the British Medical Association, consultants, the House of Lords, the Tories, the Liberal and Democratic party and some of the royal colleges—[Interruption.] Yes, and some trade unions. It is true also that every group that opposed the formation of the NHS is opposed to the proposal. Incidentally, all of these groups, with the exception of the trade unions—I will come to them in a moment—were opposed to Nye Bevan when he introduced the NHS in the first place. The trade unions, through the Labour party conference and in other ways, have expressed their opposition. That does not necessarily reflect the experience of staff when we are speaking for staff throughout the country. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said the other day, when the trade unions invited him to speak to their political committee, and when I have invited trade union leaders to come with me to talk to staff in hospitals, we have not found rampant opposition to letting staff get on with the job themselves.
	When "foundation trust" is understood by the public and the staff—let us be honest, there is often a bemused audience listening to our debates on radio and television about the term "foundation trust"—and once the term is explained to them, the vast majority of them think that it is a good idea, provided that it is part of a bigger system of change, provided that the founding values of the NHS are retained, and provided that they understand that the NHS will embrace within it the foundation trust, which will remain an integral part of the NHS.
	I do not accept what my hon. Friend is saying, but I accept that, despite the controversy, some Opposition Members have been so deeply interested in the NHS—incidentally, they can hardly muster two or three questions—that they will be present, every one of them, to vote against the Government this evening. I know that in practice they will be voting against what they say and what in theory they support. The Liberals will be voting against decentralisation. The Conservatives will be voting against choice—real, substantial choice for patients in the NHS. I believe that their position is marked by a degree of opportunism and a degree of hypocrisy. I do not blame the Conservatives for that. I would go so far as to say that it is exactly what I would expect of the Conservatives.
	If, however, any Member on the Labour Benches is looking for guidance or inspiration, or a swithering on the vote this evening, I merely ask them to look across the Chamber. Look at the Opposition. Remember what they did to the national health service when they were in power. Think what they will do if they ever get back into power. However sincere Labour Members might be, they should remember what is represented by those with whom they would walk into the Lobby tonight. Whatever position we take, I do not believe that there is any degree of coalescence with the Conservatives. If Labour Members vote against the Government tonight, they will be harming not only the NHS but our Government, by marching into the Lobby with the crowd opposite, who have no commitment to improving the health service. I ask the House to support the Bill and a Government who take pride in the past of our national health service and who have faith in its future.

Tim Yeo: I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests. I am delighted to have this early opportunity to debate such an important aspect of the Government's health policy so soon after taking on my new responsibilities. As it is the first time that I have debated with the Secretary of State, I should like to be as charitable as I can, although he has taken up well over a third of the time available for debate and left unanswered almost as many questions as there were before he stood up 45 minutes ago.
	The key to what the Secretary of State thinks about the issue was revealed in the last minute or two, when it was plain to anyone in the Chamber that his concern about how the vote goes this afternoon is not about what that vote will do to patients or the national health service, but about what the vote will do to the Government and his position in it.
	The Secretary of State raised a great many issues in his speech, some of which were somewhat tenuously related to the subject of the debate. I shall deal with those on another occasion. He frequently resorted to ludicrous allegations about the intentions of the Conservatives—intentions that we have never had, will never have and do not have now. Let me place on record the fact that I and the whole Conservative party are totally and unequivocally committed to the founding principle of the national health service—that care should be available to all free at the point of delivery, based on patient need and not on ability to pay.

Jon Owen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Yeo: In a moment.
	I regret that the Secretary of State does not have and never will have the advantage that I and other hon. Members representing English constituencies have. We can see at first hand the results of his Government's policies on our constituents. We can learn from our constituents who are patients worried about their treatment, and from our constituents who are doctors and nurses and who speak to us of their frustrations as a result of the constant interference that they suffer from the Government. It is particularly unfortunate that as a Scottish Member of Parliament, the Secretary of State is trying to impose on England arrangements for hospitals that will not apply in Scotland.
	The Secretary of State faces the debate this afternoon because he has failed to convince not just Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, but many in his own party and many people of no party about the merits of the Government's policy.

Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman is making a point about members of his party. Does he agree with his Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who stated last week:
	"It would be perverse to block a step in the right direction"?

Tim Yeo: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. He and I are at one on the matter. If the measure were a step in the right direction—I shall explain in a moment why it is not—we would, of course, support it. If the hon. Gentleman studied what my hon. Friend said at many stages in Committee, he would see that my hon. Friend was pointing out exactly the areas where the policy is going wrong.
	The Secretary of State's failure to persuade people of the merits of the Government's policy has cost his right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism a chance to support England's splendid rugger team in Saturday's world cup final in Sydney. [Interruption.] I hope that he is back. For the sake of the taxpayer, I hope that yanking Ministers back from Australia in an attempt to save the Government's bacon in the House of Commons does not become a habit.

John Reid: First, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Conservative party has brought the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) back from China? Obviously, he is unaware of that; I am slightly ahead of him. Secondly, will he explain why I cannot be objective about people in the health service, although I visit them constantly and am on their side, whereas he can apparently be objective about old folks and residents in care homes despite the fact that he is a director of care homes?

Tim Yeo: That is a very obscure intervention. I have not been discussing with my Whips the whereabouts of my hon. Friends, which is not a matter of concern to me. I have been considering the merits of the case that is before us this afternoon, which the Secretary of State seems singularly reluctant to address. The point that I want to make about his position as a Scottish Member of Parliament is that however disastrous the effects of the policies that he may be following are on the national health service, his constituents will not have to face those consequences.

Tony Baldry: Does my hon. Friend accept that I gladly flew through the night from Sierra Leone to vote against the Government today because this is a totally iniquitous proposal? Poor star-rated trusts such as Oxford Radcliffe will never get foundation hospital status. The Bill ensures that unto those who have shall be given, while from those who have not shall be taken away even that which they have. That is the policy on the NHS under this Government.

Tim Yeo: My hon. Friend eloquently anticipates the point that I was about to make. I am delighted to have his support. I say clearly that the Conservative party is opposed to this group of proposals on grounds of principle. In their present form, their effect will be to damage the national health service, not improve it.

Michael Weir: The hon. Gentleman said that the policy had no impact in Scotland, but it has an impact in Scotland and Wales as their health service spending is determined by the Barnett formula, which depends on public spending in England. The Bill means that there will effectively be private health spending in England, which will affect Scotland and Wales. That is why we are voting against it.

Tim Yeo: I think that I shall let the hon. Gentleman pursue that point in his own time.
	As the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) pointed out—I was going to call him my hon. Friend, as he was my shadow counterpart about 10 years ago and we had many happy debates in the Chamber and outside—the proposal has emerged with a minimum of consultation. There was no sign of a White Paper and no mention in an election manifesto. Indeed, when the policy was finally debated at the Secretary of State's party conference this year, it was defeated.
	Opposition Members would very much like to be able to support the Bill. In this House and the other place, we have made strenuous efforts to improve the measures that it contains. We have often done so with the co-operation of the Liberal Democrats and other minority parties, and in the House of Lords we did so with the co-operation of many Cross Benchers. During that process, the Government have conceded a number of points, but despite those concessions the House of Lords did not feel able to support clause 1. The fact that it reached that conclusion is not really so surprising because many other people and organisations have expressed their concern. The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) referred to some of those organisations, which include the King's Fund, the British Medical Association, the Trades Union Congress, the Royal College of Nursing, Unison, the Society of Radiographers, the Transport and General Workers Union, the GMB and many others that the Secretary of State attempted to tarnish by saying that they had all apparently opposed the creation of the NHS 54 years ago.

Hugh Bayley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Yeo: In a moment. The next point concerns the Secretary of State's remarks about his own Back Benchers. On this morning's "Today" programme, he sounded as if he was almost attacking his colleagues for contemplating voting against the Government. The truth is, as he should know, that those Members who are courageously thinking of opposing this clause are standing shoulder to shoulder with their constituents because they can see the damage that the Bill will do to them in its current form. Those who put the interests of their constituents first will enjoy the respect of this House, and of those whom they represent here.
	We oppose the amendments—reluctantly, as I have said—for two reasons. First, they will harm those hospitals that do not receive foundation trust status. To begin with, that means the vast majority of the hospitals that our constituents use every day. Secondly, the foundation trusts established by the Bill will themselves be heavily burdened by a management structure that is muddled, confusing and expensive; by a star-rating system that distracts doctors and nurses, and sometimes prevents them from treating the patients most in need of their care; and by a regulator that, far from being independent, will be little more than a creature of the Secretary of State, with sweeping powers to direct foundation trusts' activities.

Stephen McCabe: Can the hon. Gentleman estimate how many NHS hospitals would be damaged by his policy of siphoning off money and giving it to private practice?

Tim Yeo: I regret giving way to the hon. Gentleman. Such a tired old allegation is completely irrelevant to the important matters that the House has a limited amount of time to consider this afternoon.
	There is no doubt that the clause will create a two-tier health service. The chairman of the British Medical Association council said:
	"I am in little doubt that the establishment of foundation trusts will . . . exacerbate inequalities in the NHS."

John Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tim Yeo: In a moment. Let us be clear: for several years, most of the hospitals that serve our constituents will not have foundation status. Only a handful—25—will qualify in the first instance, and the privileges obtained by them will be paid for by other, less fortunate hospitals.

John Reid: I wanted to intervene because I was so moved by the hon. Gentleman's passion for eradicating inequalities in health care. Now that he has put the onion away, can he explain to the House how taking money out of the national health service and giving it to those who can afford half the private cost of a heart bypass—£10,000—so that they can jump the queue quicker, would increase equity in the health service?

Tim Yeo: Given the Secretary of State's lamentable performance in defending his own policies this afternoon, I look forward with relish to debating the Conservative party's proposals on the future of the health service at the appropriate time. There is limited time this afternoon to deal with issues that are of great concern to Members on both sides of the House, so I shall address the subject covered by the amendments.
	In terms of the two-tier service, the victory that the Treasury scored over the Department of Health last year has particularly damaging consequences, because borrowing by foundation trusts will count against the Department of Health's overall totals. By making investment a zero-sum game, the Secretary of State has ensured that extra investment by foundation trusts will impoverish non-foundation trusts now, and for a considerable time to come. He claimed this morning that all national health service hospitals will gain foundation trust status within four years, but the question arises of whether that claim has been cast into doubt by what he has just said about a review of the first wave's performance at the end of 2005. In any event, four years is a long time for hospitals to languish in the second division, especially as, by definition, it is the weakest hospitals that will do so. Therefore, under the Secretary of State's plan, the hospitals that most need new investment will be the last ones to get it.
	Another serious flaw in the clause concerns the nature of the foundation trusts that the Bill will establish, if it is passed. I have a long-standing interest in the role of independent hospitals. [Interruption.] Yes, it is a subject of which I have considerable direct experience having been chairman for eight years of the charitable trust that in 1983 took over the management of a former NHS hospital, Tadworth Court children's hospital.
	That hospital, once the country branch of the Hospital for Sick Children, Great Ormond Street, faced closure in 1982. I led a successful campaign to keep it open, at the end of which an independent charitable trust was established to run it. Twenty years later—if the Secretary of State is interested in this rather important example of what a genuinely independent hospital can do—that children's hospital is vibrant, thriving and greatly expanded. I visited it last Friday in preparation for this debate. It is responsive to patients' needs, innovative in the services that it provides and outstanding in the quality of care that is offered by its professional and other staff to many children and their families.
	The crucial ingredient in that remarkable success story has been the independence that the doctors, nurses and management have enjoyed—independence that, alas, foundation trusts are not granted by the Bill. Even though a Downing street press notice on 9 October 2002 suggested that foundation hospitals would be
	"fully independent from Whitehall control"
	under the Bill, foundation trusts will be as constrained in almost all respects as existing NHS trusts, prompting the Office for National Statistics to rule:
	"NHS Foundation Trusts will be classified in the public sector as central government bodies. The same classification now applies for NHS Trusts."
	The ONS concluded:
	"This set up has similarities with the model adopted for Network Rail"—
	not a happy precedent.
	Under the Bill, foundation trusts are burdened with governance arrangements that are complex, confusing, ill defined, expensive and time consuming to operate. As much as £250,000 a year may be spent by each hospital in defining constituencies and running elections. The time and attention of doctors and managers will be diverted from patient care. There is a risk that foundation trusts may fall prey to pressure groups. As the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) pointed out, it is not clear why the Government have chosen to address their concerns about governance to providers rather than to commissioners.
	There are many other reasons for opposing the Bill but, in the interests of allowing other hon. Members to take part in the debate, I make one final point. Some people have suggested that, because certain features of foundation trusts proposed by the Government have a resemblance to our policies, we should not oppose the Bill but let it pass in its flawed state, with the intention of correcting those flaws as soon as we have the power to do so. That is a superficially tempting argument but it does not wash for two reasons.
	First, as I have said, the Bill in its present form is a step in the wrong direction. It makes matters worse, not better. Secondly, the health service has been through many reorganisations in recent years. The Government now propose another upheaval. For us to encourage or even to condone that in the certain knowledge that, two years from now, we would have to impose yet more change to put right what Labour is doing would be grossly irresponsible.
	The Bill does not provide reforms that will improve the NHS. It does not give hospitals the freedoms that they deserve. It creates a dog-eat-dog culture in the NHS. It is opposed by a formidable array of professional and other bodies. This debate and the vote that will follow it is almost certainly the last chance to block a proposal that, in their hearts, a majority of hon. Members on both sides know is wrong. Rejecting clause 1 will give the Government a chance to reconsider and to listen to the many voices pleading for change. They could then return to Parliament in the new Session with a Bill that does not divide the haves from the have-nots, and that gives foundation trusts genuine freedoms for the benefit of patients and their families. I urge the House to vote against the motion.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed an eight-minute limit on speeches by Back-Bench Members. That applies from now on. I call Mr. David Hinchliffe.

David Hinchliffe: This is the first debate to which I have contributed since my right hon. Friend became Secretary of State for Health, and I wish him well, genuinely and sincerely, despite the somewhat unfortunate circumstances. I praise him for some of the steps that he has taken. He has made positive progress in the short time that he has been Secretary of State.
	I also extend greetings to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) and his new team. We tangled many moons ago, and I wish him well in his work. I am sure that his background and experience means that we will have some excellent debates. I also extend good wishes to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), the new Liberal Democrat spokesman. He, too, has a good track record on health issues.
	I begin with an apology to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism, who has had to return from the rugby union world cup. I am pleased to say that he is in the Chamber. Having seen the quality of some of the matches, some of us think that we have done him a great favour in getting him back. He is well aware that Great Britain meets Australia in the third rugby league test on Saturday. At least the players in that code can string three passes together without dropping the ball, and they can also score the odd try.
	In the limited time available to me, I want to make a few brief points about my concerns, and to repeat what I said when I intervened on my right hon. Friend in respect of the constitutional aspects of the handling of this matter. I think that he conceded that lessons should be learned from the way that the House has been bounced into a policy which, as everyone can see, has not been thought through properly. I welcome that.
	I have been a member of the Labour party for almost 40 years—I know that I do not look that old. I have always been proud that the party has had democratic processes for policy development. Policies were discussed at branch and constituency level, and at conference. However, this policy was discussed at conference only this year, when a pretty clear decision was taken. I understand why the Lords should have some grievances about the way that the matter has been handled, as there has been no proper scrutiny in this House. No Green Paper or White Paper was published, and hon. Members have had no way to monitor the policy's likely effects apart from a brief inquiry conducted by the Health Committee.
	I do not want to labour the point, but a number of Labour Members are aggrieved that the Bill has been able to pass through this House thanks only to the votes of hon. Members whose constituents will not be affected by foundation status. That concerns a lot of people, both in the House and outside it.
	I want to repeat my key objections to the policy. I believe that it represents a return to a market ethos and to competition. We do not need to have this review; if we turn the clock back a few years, we can see exactly what happened under the internal market introduced by the Conservative Government. The same processes will be apparent and they will lead to there being winners and losers. Some Labour Members will support the Government's policy because they have hospitals that will apply for foundation status in their constituencies. They are not looking beyond their immediate areas and they are not considering the policy's effect on the wider NHS in their part of the world. That worries me.
	The policy is a departure from the Government's previous aim—that the NHS should be primary care led. That policy direction was very successful. A weakness evident since the inception of the NHS is that we have allowed it to be dominated by the hospital sector, and by hospital consultants in particular. The Government were brave to move towards primary care trusts. If they were going to consider an innovation in respect of governance such as is set out in the Bill, the obvious place to start should have been at the level of PCTs. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) has made that point on several occasions. I am sorry that the Government have not done that.
	I do not think that the governance elements have been thought through. I understand from questions that the Health Committee put to the Secretary of State and his officials a couple of weeks ago that the Government anticipate that the average trust will have about 10,000 members. I calculate that those 10,000 members will represent about one fiftieth of the patients within the remit of individual trusts. I do not regard that as democracy.

Siobhain McDonagh: Will my hon. Friend give way?

David Hinchliffe: With the greatest respect, given the time that I have got—[Interruption.] Okay, my hon. Friend has persuaded me to give way.

Siobhain McDonagh: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He castigates the Government for a system of hospital democracy that includes one fiftieth of people in an area. What would he say to me about the fact that nobody in my constituency is on the boards of St. Helier hospital, St. George's hospital or any other hospital or primary care trust that represents them?

David Hinchliffe: I would say what I have said on many occasions, which is that every patient—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend has asked a question and she is going to listen to me. Every patient ought to have a right to a vote in their local health service. What the Bill proposes is tokenistic; it is not thought through.
	I have spent much of the last few days in my local hospital. I spent Saturday night and Sunday morning in the local casualty department with a member of my family. We are talking about spending £100,000 per trust just to start going in the direction of foundation trusts but, having spent several days this week in the NHS, I must say that there are a lot of other things that I would be spending that money on before that. There will be £100,000 for each foundation trust—£2.5 million for the first 25—and £2.3 million will be the cost of the regulator for one year, so £5 million of scarce NHS money that should have been spent on more doctors and nurses, and on treating people and hip operations—on the kinds of things that are raised in our constituency surgeries week after week—is being wasted on a half-baked idea.
	I hope that Labour Members will listen to the Labour party conference—the decision was clear—to their constituents, to their PCTs, and to the voice of local people, and that they will vote against the Government this evening.

Paul Burstow: While listening to the Secretary of State's opening speech, it occurred to me that he was having to rely on some of the more basic tactics to try to ensure that Labour Members stick with him tonight. Pressing the class button and suggesting that the House of Lords not agreeing with this House should be a sufficient argument for this House to overturn the House of Lords does not provide a sufficient case that we should not listen to what the Lords have had to say. It is important to bear it in mind that in the debates in the other place it was not just Liberal Democrat, Conservative or Cross-Bench peers who expressed concern about this legislation; it was Labour peers as well. It is important for those who have concerns to keep that in mind when they pass through the Lobby.
	The Liberal Democrats do not have an argument with the Government about their underlying analysis and the case for devolution in the NHS. Central control, targets and tick boxes stifle innovation and initiative in the NHS, and one size certainly does not fit the needs of every community and every individual who uses the NHS. However, we do not believe that the foundation trust proposals go anywhere near lifting the dead hand of control from the NHS.
	The freedoms that come with this Bill—they are not many, and some of them are illusory when the Bill is studied closely—are earned at a price. It is a high price: it is about hitting Whitehall targets, achieving the star rating, and going through the hoops that Ministers set. There is still control, but it is slightly less clear where that control exists. In truth, freedom is granted at the pleasure of the Secretary of State. That theme runs throughout this Bill, because it applies to both the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and the Commission for Social Care Inspection. In each and every case, there are powers of direction and control that the Secretary of State may use to make clear what he wants to happen.
	Indeed, the Secretary of State looms large in part 1, standing behind the regulator, armed with powers of direction, the final arbiter when deciding whether a trust may proceed to foundation status. We already know that not all trusts will be able to progress at the same rate. The best that the Secretary of State can offer is that it will be four years before all trusts have that status.
	The Bill says little about the role of the regulator and how he will exercise his duties, yet decisions taken by foundation trusts will have profound effects on the balance of the local health economy. They will have real effects on the services that people need. In an intervention on the Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) referred to cancer networks. I hope that he was not satisfied with the response that he received, as it gave us no confidence that foundation trusts will do anything but call into question the effective operation of such networks in future.
	Will foundation trusts really see themselves as team players in the local health system? Will they be on the side of patients to ensure that cancer services are properly delivered? That is why my noble Friends want to amend the Bill so that it includes a requirement for the regulator to act in a way that is consistent with the National Health Service Act 1977. Lords amendment No. 4 would ensure that there is no ambiguity: the regulator would have to act in a way that ensures equity and safeguards universality of provision in health care services.
	It is not good enough for Ministers in the other place and in the Chamber today simply to assert that foundation trusts will use their freedom in conformity with the key NHS principles and that they will not undermine the ability of other NHS providers in the local health economy to meet their obligations. Just putting something on the record in this place is not sufficient assurance. When legislation affecting patient-public involvement was being discussed in the House, Ministers gave numerous assurances that were not honoured subsequently.
	It is important that Ministers confirm today that foundation trusts will never undermine other NHS hospitals and that they will never make predatory plans that would take business from another trust and cause it to lose activity. It is important to determine whether we are talking about competition or co-operation in the NHS. If foundation trusts secure freedom to act, it is hard to see how that freedom will not disadvantage the hospitals that are left behind.
	Let us consider, for example, the borrowing rules—leaving to one side the question whether private finance initiative projects should count, although I think they should be included in the equation. Foundation trusts will have easier access to capital, but we have heard today that the Treasury has put a cap on the total amount available. The trusts will have to bid for the money in the pot that the Treasury makes available to the NHS. If they are allowed greater flexibility and freedom to dip into that pot, they will disadvantage everyone else. What will be the gains for those involved in the early part of the process compared with those who come later? As we reach the final wave of foundation trusts—although I hope that we do not—when everyone has that freedom, there will be no difference in terms of access to capital funds but there certainly will be a difference during the early phases.
	There are questions about staffing. The Secretary of State says that foundation trusts will adhere to "Agenda for Change", but for how long? Nothing in the Bill would prevent foundation trusts from varying their pay and conditions over time so that they can expand their activities.

Tom Levitt: Like me, the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton), who is sitting with the hon. Gentleman on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, supports the application of Stepping Hill hospital in Stockport for foundation status. Does the hon. Gentleman support his hon. Friend's campaign, which I share, for that hospital better to serve the citizens of Stockport and High Peak?

Paul Burstow: I thought that interventions should pick up on a specific point that a Member was making. That is an interesting point—

George Stevenson: rose—

Paul Burstow: Let me deal with the first intervention first.
	At this point, there is a Bill before the House. My position and that of my party is opposition to the principle of foundation trusts. The measure has not yet completed all its stages; until it does, I certainly do not support applications for foundation status. That is my position and the position of my party.

George Stevenson: While the hon. Gentleman is trying to find a way out of the question, will he confront the issue that concerns everyone I have talked to in my constituency in north Staffordshire? They are asking, if the Stockport application goes ahead, and the other application, too, what effect it will have on North Staffordshire hospital, which will not go ahead. Is he as concerned as my constituents about that issue?

Paul Burstow: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, which is that as we have a series of waves of foundation trust applications, those that get left behind can be washed up and really lose out as a result of the process, particularly when it comes to the ability to bid for capital resources. Those that have the freedom early on will be able to get money out of the pot. Once everyone has the freedom, there is really no difference in terms of the access to that money. The Government tell us, "We have a bigger pot of capital funds available, so don't worry about it." The reality is that this system will allow two tiers to emerge. Whether it is only for a few years or not, that will damage equity within the national health service, which is why we are raising our concerns and will vote against the Government's proposals tonight.
	I was talking about staffing within the NHS and the way in which the Government are trying to—

Hugh Bayley: rose—

Paul Burstow: If the hon. Gentleman will let me develop this point, I will give way to him.
	The Government have said that they will stick to "Agenda for Change", but the point is that in a health care system where trained staff are, and are likely to remain, a scarce resource, the ability to compete on pay and conditions will be a boon to foundation trusts at the expense of patients treated anywhere else in the national health service, and it is not possible for the Government to argue that the other freedoms that will enable them to generate additional activity and additional resources will not be used to enable them to compete more effectively in the labour market locally, to attract staff from other trusts that are not foundation trusts. How can that not be the case? That is not just my view; in the other place Lord Warner, the Under-Secretary of State, said that NHS foundation trusts
	"will be able to invest more easily in the delivery of new services, manage more flexibly, reward their staff in a way that is more appropriate to local circumstances and have access to a wider range of options for capital funding.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 November 2003; Vol. 654, c. 936.]
	What can that be other than an ability to act differently from those that do not have foundation trust status? The seeds of a two-tier NHS on capital and staffing are being sown tonight by this legislation.

Kate Hoey: I very much agree with what the hon. Gentleman said in his last few sentences. Does he agree that a more dangerous issue is the fact that chief executives have already been discussing in national health trusts how they would be able to increase their own salary to some very large figure? They will now have the freedom to do that as well.

Paul Burstow: That is true, but what is really an insult to the House and to the House of Lords is the fact that the Government are driving through their first wave of foundation applications before the ink is even dry on the Royal Assent to the Bill. It seems to me that we should have waited for this matter to be concluded before thousands of pounds and hundreds of hours were invested in taking these proposals to the stage that they have already reached for many applications. That is why, in response to the intervention by the hon. Member for High Peak (Tom Levitt), I do not support this at this stage, and I think it is right for many hon. Members to take that view.
	It does not end there. The Secretary of State has said that the Government will reinstate the cap on the ability of NHS foundation trusts to pay more. The Bill as drafted leaves it up to the regulator to decide whether he will place any limitation on the amount of private work a foundation trust can do. It is a power, not a duty, a question of may rather than must, and Labour Members must look at the Bill and be certain what it says. This is a discretion for the regulator. It is not guaranteed that NHS foundation trusts might not do substantially more private work than they are doing now, because the regulator does not have to impose any such limitation.

John Hutton: I am very reluctant to intervene on the hon. Gentleman, because I am following closely what he is saying, but I want to make it absolutely clear to the House that he is wrong in the point that he just made. There is no doubt whatever that the Bill requires the regulator to impose a patient cap.

Paul Burstow: The Bills says "may", not "must". The wording is very clear, and I am sure that, if the Minister gets the chance later, he will take the House through the text and we will see how clear it is. I urge other hon. Members to take a view for themselves and to read the Bill.
	At the very least, I hope that the Government will concede that foundation trusts should clearly state in their accounts the costs and income attributable to private activity, because that will also not be covered. That is what Lords amendment No. 29 is all about, and I hope that Labour Members will vote in favour of that as well.
	The Government's proposed arrangements offer the prospect of costly sham democracy, which could have unintended consequences. Some of the most powerful speeches on foundation trusts in the other House were made by Labour peers. For example, Lord Lipsey warned that the governance arrangements would embed politics in the management of our hospitals. We should take that point into account.
	I started by saying that Liberal Democrats agree with the need to free the NHS from the dead hand of ministerial interference, but the proposals will not achieve that. We need much more local control over the NHS, but we need to focus on PCTs and the commissioning side. Those who commission health care must be responsive to local needs. The commissioners should be democratically accountable. That is why we believe that the argument should be about democratic health care commissioning. I refer, in particular, to the remarks of the Labour peer Lord Harris, who said:
	"I believe that a fundamental question must be answered first: why is the emphasis on membership and boards of governors applied to provider trusts—in particular hospitals—rather than to the bodies charged with commissioning, in particular the PCTs? Is there not a serious danger that the new governance arrangements will reinforce, if not fossilise, the traditional provider domination of the NHS, when what we should be encouraging in a modern health service is a more flexible approach to how services are delivered, led by local needs determined by commissioning bodies devoted to improving public health and reducing inequalities in outcomes?"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 September 2003; Vol. 652, c. 84.]
	Lord Harris was absolutely right to raise that concern about how the Government's proposals could fossilise the traditional domination of providers in the NHS. That is why we on the Liberal Democrat Benches argue the case for democratic local government, not anyone else, to be involved in the control of commissioning.

Hugh Bayley: Earlier in the hon. Gentleman's speech, he made the important point about the need to achieve equity in the NHS, but does he not recognise that there is gross inequity at the moment, with some hospitals operating on four times as many patients per doctor as others? If he rejects market forces, rejects national standards and regulation, and rejects patient and public empowerment as ways to get the poorer performing trusts to perform better, what method would the Liberal Democrats use to drive up standards in the poorer performing hospitals?

Paul Burstow: The hon. Gentleman seems to have made a speech, and I commend him for taking that opportunity. [Interruption.] I want to finish my speech, as I should have thought that one or two other hon. Members want the opportunity to make theirs.
	I just want to end with this: it has been made very clear, time and again, in the other place, that there is a strong case for saying no to the foundation trusts proposals. I urge hon. Members to go through the Lobby against the Government tonight. The proposals are the bathtub musings of a former Secretary of State, and they now appear in the form of half-baked legislation. This is the wrong way to try to decentralise and devolve in the NHS, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House who still have doubts about the Bill and foundation trusts will take the opportunity tonight to send a message to the Government. That message is very simple: think again.

Stephen McCabe: I will endeavour to be brief, because I understand that many other hon. Members would like to speak.
	I want to make it clear that I am a passionate supporter of the NHS. I have no private health insurance, and I receive no money from private health organisations. I came here quite simply in 1997 to defend the NHS and to see it rebuilt, but I have reached the conclusion that it has to be modernised; it cannot creak along on the 1948 model. I want it to reflect the needs of the people who use it. That is what is really important. Over a period, a tendency has developed whereby the health service has begun to reflect too much the needs of those who work in it. Important though those needs are, it cannot merely serve those interests—it must serve the interests of the people who need to use it. That is the first thing that I want to happen.
	I understand that many of my colleagues have legitimate concerns and anxieties, and I respect the views that they hold. There is a tendency, however, to exaggerate some of those concerns. I had the benefit of serving on the Committee that scrutinised the Bill, and my slight concern is that if we overplay those anxieties we will set our face against any modernisation of the health service, which plays right into the hands of the Opposition. We know that a precondition of their plans is that they must portray the health service as creaking, moribund and useless. If we overdo our criticism of any modest proposals for change, we play into their hands. That is what I am worried about.
	What is being proposed tonight, with all the qualifications attached and compromises offered by the Secretary of State, is a little bit more autonomy for local hospitals—a lot less than we happily give to chief constables—

Kate Hoey: We didn't need an Act to do that.

Stephen McCabe: I hear my hon. Friend, and I have had the benefit of her running commentary for the past hour and a half. I hope that everyone else will get to hear at least some of her views in the course of the debate.
	The Bill will give local people, patients, staff and partnership organisations a real chance to have a say in the setting and the direction of the trust. That seems to me the right thing to do. It is a small step, in my judgment, towards a less bureaucratic, costly and centralised health service, which is the right thing for us to do. Contrary to the views of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), the proposals, for the very first time, put a cap on private work.
	I recognise that there are concerns and that people are anxious. My point, however, is that we do not have a uniform health service now—anyone who believes that we do is kidding themselves. What we are trying to do is provide a little bit of autonomy as an attempt to move forward. We are building in safeguards: the Bill demands safeguards on partnership and sets out a duty of co-operation. The fears that some people have are exaggerated. My fear is simply this: every Labour Member who goes through the Lobby with the Leader of the Opposition tonight is pandering to the Conservatives. Every ex-Minister on the Labour Benches who demanded loyalty and support when they were holding their ministerial portfolio should think about why it is so difficult for them to show some loyalty in return tonight.

Alice Mahon: The hon. Gentleman voted a different way from me on the war in Iraq, and he went through the Lobby shoulder to shoulder with Conservative Members.

Stephen McCabe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. On the issue of Iraq, I was not aware that we were actually discussing the future of the health service. On the issue of Iraq, there were cross-party positions in the House. My point is that there is a clear Conservative agenda to run down and denigrate the health service and to prevent modernisation and reform, because that is a precondition of the Opposition's policies.

Desmond Turner: May I remind my hon. Friend that there is also a very clear Labour agenda on the national health service? It was expressed by our party conference, and it is not foundation hospitals.

Stephen McCabe: I should point out to my hon. Friend that I was also at the conference and I remember the constituency vote.

Jon Owen Jones: On the subject of marching shoulder to shoulder with the Tory party, I for one did not vote with Opposition Members on Iraq. However, I think that they have learned a lesson. Had they behaved on the issue of war with Iraq in the way that they are doing now, they would have defeated this side. They have learned that lesson, and they are putting it into practice now.

Stephen McCabe: Most people will recognise that that is absolutely the case. I simply make the point that there are people here who rightly expected loyalty when they held ministerial portfolios. I respect people's views and I accept that some people hold different views from me.

Clare Short: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Stephen McCabe: How could I refuse?

Clare Short: Labour has a big majority in the House of Commons, and I never asked anyone in our party for blind loyalty. I wanted to listen to them and for us to act together according to our values. That is what we should do today.

Stephen McCabe: I should make it clear that I have enormous personal respect for my right hon. Friend. If she has changed her view on this matter, I respect that. However, on the last vote, she did not vote for the policy because she was confused about the time of the vote, not because she was against the policy. That is the position, and I have to make it clear to her.

Clare Short: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want to mislead the House. I voted against this matter when it was last before the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is, no doubt, a matter of record for the House.

Stephen McCabe: I am very grateful for that correction. I was simply referring to my right hon. Friend's quotation in the newspaper. I might have the wrong quotation, but I recollect that we voted once on the matter on Second Reading, but there we go.
	My point is that we have a choice, but if we go through the Lobby with the Leader of the Opposition, we shall be doing so with a man who has described the NHS and the people who work in it as a Stalinist creation. That is what he thinks about it; that is what the Conservatives believe in. I do not want any part of that.

Kenneth Clarke: I must admit that I had some hopes of the new Secretary of State when he took over his responsibilities. I thought that he would continue in the direction of reform and modernisation that has just been welcomed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe). Since the Labour party first came to office—after a rather regrettable two years of reaction under the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), of which he is proud—it has moved steadily in the direction of combining finance for the health service with radical reform. I thought that the Secretary of State might take that forward.
	It is therefore a matter of considerable regret that, at a comparatively early stage in the Secretary of State's period of office, he has got himself into a terrible mess on the agenda of reform. He finds himself in a difficult debate before the House, defending a dog's breakfast that seems to have brought against it an amazing combination of opponents. It is not often that the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and myself are on the same side in a health debate, but we both think that what the Secretary of State has produced is nonsense and that he should go away and think about it again.
	Let me assure the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Wakefield that I remain totally committed to the idea of a free national health service that is based on equal access to treatment for all patients and financed largely out of taxation, and I will not waiver from that. For more than 20 years, I have been accused, as has my party, of having a secret agenda to undermine that, but our entire period of office demonstrated that we never moved one iota in that direction. I will be bitterly opposed to any suggestion that we should move in that direction now. I do not believe that we will.
	The principles underlying reform should unite certainly those on both Front Benches in this House. We all now profess a belief in patient choice. Far be it from us to dwell on the bitter opposition to that proposition that the Labour party used to evince. We all propound the benefits of diversity of provision of health care from the public, private and voluntary sectors. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) said, as I was the Minister of State who saved Tadworth Court and allowed it to go the private trust. It is a demonstration of how what was described as a failed hospital has now become a beacon of excellence because of the way in which an independent trust was able to develop it. We actually believe that with properly directed patient choice, a certain amount of competition among providers will lead to improvements to the quality and efficiency of the service.
	Foundation hospitals could have marked a considerable step forward, and at times I thought that they would. I regret that I have not looked up my voting record but I think that I abstained when the measure came before the House in July. I shall not speak for my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who I am glad to say is our new shadow spokesman on health, but I suspect that he would have been considerably embarrassed if the Government had introduced measures to give effect to the local independence, liberalisation of the service and decentralisation that the Secretary of State said formed such a key part of his proposals. In fact, however, the Government have not persuaded people who believe in those things.
	Many Members of the House of Lords would have moved in favour of the Government if they had delivered on what appeared to be the objectives of foundation hospitals. They would lose many Conservative opponents today—they might lose the lot of us—if they introduced genuine decentralisation for foundation hospitals, because we would support them. However, they have made half-baked concessions to the Labour Members who have been intervening on speeches for the past two hours, so they have wound up with the worst of all possible worlds. The Bill will not create an important new type of institution with the ability to exercise more local control in the service. It will create a body with a strange construction that will be even sillier than Network Rail, which is a precedent for the non-profit-making and accountable bodies to which the Labour party seems to be converted. The Government have not satisfied the dinosaurs who want to go back to the old NHS, and they certainly have not satisfied sensible reformers here, in another place, or in bodies such as the King's Fund, which is totally non-political and would certainly support any sensible modernising agenda.
	Other hon. Members want to speak and share my frustration, so let me say why the Government have failed to win support and why I am convinced that the measure must be opposed. We must consider the role of the regulator. The Bill is covered with the regulator's constraints over the powers of new foundation hospitals. The regulator will have considerable control over their borrowing. I have some sympathy with the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), who first introduced proposals for foundation hospitals. He lost the same battle with the Treasury that I lost when I was planning the precursors of NHS trusts. I wanted the most successful parts of the service to have the freedom to borrow and raise capital so that they could respond to rising demand. The Treasury turned me down. When I got to the Treasury, as Chancellor, I found that the Government were so battered over reform that no one wanted to change the system any more, so I was not able to reverse the decision. [Interruption.] The Labour party was accusing us of privatisation at the time, so my successor as Secretary of State for Health did not dare say that hospitals should be allowed to go to the private markets, because the present Secretary of State would have been in the vanguard with the hon. Member for Wakefield saying how dreadful it would be to privatise the service in such a way if that had happened.
	The right hon. Member for Darlington had a go, but he failed. If hon. Members look at the way in which the new foundation hospitals will be constrained when raising capital, they will see that the situation is a complete nonsense that is made worse by the fact that when they get approval to borrow and make capital investment, it will be at the expense of the rest of the national health service. That point has been repeated by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, but the Secretary of State has not responded to it.
	The cap on income from private practice is reminiscent of Barbara Castle. I cannot understand why on earth NHS hospitals should not be allowed to raise more income by attracting private practice and why doctors who carry out such practice should not do that in the NHS hospitals in which they work—it is a ridiculous constraint.
	After listening to the debate, I do not understand quite how constrained the hospitals will be by national pay agreements. It seems that if a left-wing Member makes an intervention, the House is assured that hospitals will be bound by "Agenda for Change" and national pay terms and conditions, but if a Conservative or Liberal Member makes an intervention, there is a suggestion that they may move away from that a little. The NHS should not be in a straitjacket of national terms for pay and conditions regardless of regional and local needs. The management of the service would be improved if foundation hospitals had more discretion.
	I do not have time to deal in detail with the elected boards of governors, but they are an appalling idea. With a membership that has yet to be defined, they will be elected on a tiny turnout. They may be dominated by the trade unions, or the membership will vote for local party politicians or various special interest groups, such as pro-life groups. That is not democracy. It is a ridiculous way to establish a system of governance for a local service.
	I agree with those who say that we are too obsessed with hospital management. The commissioning side of the service—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has had his time.

Frank Dobson: Unlike the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, many Labour Members have been against the foundation hospital proposal from the outset. We believe that it will be damaging and divisive, not just for the NHS, but for the Labour party as well. Events have borne out what we have said from the start. Nothing significant has changed since foundation hospitals were announced. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's proposal to revert to the original proposition of 25 foundation hospitals followed by another 30 without extending that opportunity to every hospital automatically within four years is a withdrawal of what was originally announced as a concession to those of us who were against the proposal.
	A review has been announced, but we should not need it because if the first round of hospitals is not a success, surely no sensible Government will proceed with the second round. It has always worried us that the review will consider only the impact of change on the foundation hospitals, not the possible adverse impact on the hospitals nearby.
	The principal objection to foundation hospitals is that they are intended to reintroduce competition into the NHS, setting hospital against hospital, as the Tories did under the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). That proved immensely expensive and damaging for patients. If anyone doubts whether it was damaging, the one academic study on the subject concluded in relation to recovery rates from heart attacks that
	"competition is associated with higher death rates."
	Nothing is worse for patients than higher death rates.
	Foundation hospitals will clearly have more money, which will allow them to poach staff from hospitals that do not have enough money. Ministers have said that foundation hospitals will be bound by the "Agenda for Change" document, chapter 7 of which sets out additional freedoms for NHS trusts to negotiate local arrangements, to have special bonus schemes and benefits, and to award recruitment and retention premiums above 30 per cent. of basic pay. They can do all of that without referring to anyone else. Ministers have said that other hospitals may be able to do that, but it would be possible only with someone else's permission. That is the substantial difference.
	Foundation hospitals will be given the power to determine their priorities and strategies. No longer will they have to reflect the priorities and strategies that we have said should be laid down by primary care trusts. They will, indeed, become cuckoos in the nest, which will be very damaging. That is why most Labour MPs, the Labour party conference, most people who work in the NHS and the organisations representing them have rejected the concept of foundation hospitals. The major trade unions have rejected it, as have most of the professional bodies, including the British Medical Association, the National Health Service Consultants Association and the Royal College of General Practitioners. Ministers tell us to ignore them because they are, they say with disdain, "producers". That reminds me of Kipling's poem on Tommy Atkins, his paean of praise for common soldiers and his despising of the people who criticised them when they were not fighting. I would adjust it to say, "Then it's producer this, an' producer that, an producer 'ow's yer soul? But they all turn into heroes when the ambulances roll." Those are the people we are talking about—ambulance staff, nurses, midwives, cleaners, catering staff, doctors, radiographers and therapists. They are all opposed to foundation hospitals. Even the Tories never achieved such unanimity against any of their proposals.

Adrian Bailey: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Frank Dobson: No, I am sorry, but I do not have time.
	We are rejecting the views of the very people who do the work in the NHS and who have always stuck up for the NHS. Many hon. Members will remember that in late April 1997, 53 doctors wrote a letter to the Daily Mirror saying that we had 24 hours to save the NHS. A survey of them has found that nine out of 10 reject the idea of foundation hospitals, and a random sample of NHS consultants shows that they do not like the idea. No patient organisation has come out in favour of the idea.
	Who is for foundation hospitals, apart from the Government? It is a few academics and a few think-tanks, which appear to be more tank than think. A few extremely ambitious NHS managers are in favour of foundation hospitals, but even the NHS managers' body has said that 65 per cent. think that it will be more difficult for people in the NHS to co-operate with one another in future because of the introduction of foundation hospitals. Ministers say that they want to appeal over the heads of the producers and the Labour party to the public, but all the opinion polls show that at least 60 per cent. of the public reject the idea.
	I know that the Whips and many other hon. Members are concerned about the impact of defeating the Government on this issue today, because it might be damaging to the Labour party, but I say to all my right hon. and hon. Friends that, until now, the arguments have been conducted at a national level. If this goes through, there will be rowing, trouble-making and bother for people in the Labour party all over the country. Labour MPs without foundation trusts will face their Tory opponents saying that they are useless because they did not manage to get their hospitals made into foundation trusts. When the first doctor or nurse moves from a non-foundation trust hospital to the nearest foundation trust, there will be a huge row in the local papers and Labour will be blamed.
	We have a brilliant record in putting more money into the NHS, with more new hospitals than ever. We have increased the number of beds and the number of staff—including those in training—and people who work in the NHS want just to be left alone to get on with their day jobs of looking after patients.

Stephen Dorrell: It is absurd, given the importance of this Bill, that we should be debating our response to a Lords amendment against a two-hour guillotine. The Secretary of State alone took up 48 minutes. The idea that we can hear full contributions from the Opposition or from Government Back Benchers within two hours is absurd.
	In the limited time left to me, I want to point out that the Secretary of State began his speech with two points. First, he said that there was no dispute on his side of the House—I would say on either side of the House—about the importance of the principle that the NHS was established as the means for delivery of health care on the basis of clinical need and without regard to ability to pay. That principle is supported by both sides of the House and by the overwhelming majority of the British people. I acknowledge that that principle is accepted by Labour Back Benchers and he should acknowledge that it is also supported on this side of the House.
	The Secretary of State's second point was that in this day and age the best way to deliver that public policy objective is to follow a decentralisation policy in NHS management, trusting professionals and allowing those who deliver health care greater opportunity to match the service they deliver to the needs of their patients. If the Bill could be conceived of as a means of delivering that policy objective, I have no doubt that all my hon. Friends and I would support the Secretary of State. The problem is that the Bill does not deliver what he claims it will. It does not decentralise within the health service—in fact, it does something that, until I read the Bill, I thought was impossible: it succeeds in making power in the NHS even more centralised and bureaucratic than it is now. In that more centralised and more bureaucratic health service, the Secretary of State gives foundation trust hospitals an entirely unfair advantage over all other institutions. His Bill does not deliver his objective, but does real damage to the management of the health service.
	Let me give two important examples to demonstrate the truth of that statement. The Secretary of State was kind enough to allow me to intervene during his speech, but he did not respond to the point that I made. My point was that under the capital allocation procedures that he is to introduce, foundation trust hospitals will get priority, favoured access to capital from a cash-limited sum, the practical effect of which will be that those hospitals that are not foundation trust hospitals will come second in the queue and have less advantageous access to capital than they currently have.

John Reid: rose—

Stephen Dorrell: No, I will not give way to the Secretary of State during my five minutes, because I know what his answer to my point will be. I did not try to intervene again during his speech, but I shall now respond to his answer.
	The right hon. Gentleman said that the capital budget has increased; therefore there are no choices to be made. No Member of Parliament believes that any Government will ever create a world in which there are no choices to be made in capital allocations. The Secretary of State has created a world in which foundation trust hospitals will be at an entirely unfair advantage in terms of access to a cash-limited sum.
	The second point that the right hon. Gentleman did not answer during his speech relates to employment terms. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said, Labour Back Benchers are told not to worry—"Agenda for Change" is an entirely rigid straitjacket from which no element of the NHS will be able to depart. Opposition Members are told that the proposals are flexible and that all hospitals in the health service will be able to evolve local employment terms. The truth is that what the Secretary of State has delivered—
	It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].

Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
	The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 285.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment disagreed to.

Tim Yeo: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House has just approved a measure the impact of which will be felt exclusively in England. The Government's greatly reduced majority has been obtained through Scottish Members of Parliament—[Interruption.] What advice do you have for those of us whose constituents will regard this as a constitutional outrage? Will you now allow the Secretary of State to make a statement, and to consider my offer to him to enter into immediate talks on how the Bill can be improved, so that its passage through both Houses can be guaranteed? [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I had some difficulty in hearing the hon. Gentleman's point of order, but I think that I got its gist. He will know that this is not a matter in which the Chair can interfere. He has put his point on the record, and if there is to be any development or discussion, it is entirely a matter for the usual channels, and not for the occupant of the Chair.

John Reid: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The expression "pathetically bad losers" springs to mind. Will you confirm to the Conservative spokesman, who is so concerned about where the representatives of this House were elected, that a House in which none of the Tories were elected sought to take the clause out of the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Neither of those matters are points of order for the Chair.

Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that I have not heard a genuine point of order so far, so I hope he is going to provide one.

Alex Salmond: Is it in order to point out that Scottish Labour MPs have imposed on England a measure that is not only unpopular in England, but is to the detriment of the Scottish health service?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I feared as much. There is nothing that I can say on that.

Frank Field: On a genuine point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. [Hon. Members: "Hooray!"] Had there been a free vote, the Government would probably have mustered only 50 votes, so do you expect their Lordships to send the measure back to us again?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Sometimes, the occupant of the Chair has difficulty in understanding all that goes on in this House; he certainly has no power at all over what goes on in the other place. Let us move on.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker then proceeded to put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
	Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

Clause 3
	 — 
	General Duty of Regulator

Lords amendment: No. 4.
	Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Joan Ryan.]
	The House divided: Ayes 344, Noes 240.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment disagreed to.
	Government amendment (a) to the words restored agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 5 disagreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 6 to 25 agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 26 disagreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 27 agreed to.

Clause 15
	 — 
	Private Health Care

Lords amendment: No. 28.
	Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Joan Ryan.]
	The House divided: Ayes 343, Noes 213.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment disagreed to.
	Lords amendment: No. 29.
	Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Joan Ryan.]
	The House divided: Ayes 347, Noes 215.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment disagreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 30 to 55 agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 56 and Government amendment (a) thereto agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 57 and Government amendment (a) thereto agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 58 agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 59 and Government amendment (a) thereto agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 60 to 64 agreed to.

Clause 47
	 — 
	Introductory

Lords amendment: No. 65, in page 17, line 23, at end insert—
	"( ) the availability and quality of information provided to the public about the health care;"

Stephen Ladyman: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 66 to 113 and 194 to 219.

Stephen Ladyman: This group of amendments relates to part 2 of the Bill, which establishes independent inspectorates for health and social care. All the amendments represent Government concessions or technical changes to improve the Bill's drafting.
	We made several significant concessionary improvements to part 2 in response to sensible suggestions made in the other place and during the Bill's progress through the Commons. Lords amendments Nos. 65, 81, 83 and 93 will require the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, the Commission for Social Care Inspection and the National Assembly for Wales, during the course of their inspections and so on, to have regard to the quality of information provided to the public by national health service and social care bodies.
	Lords amendments Nos. 66 to 68, 71, 74, 84 to 86 and 88 will enable the Secretary of State to set out in regulations how individual national health service and social care bodies may make representations to the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and the Commission for Social Care Inspection before reports or performance ratings relating to them are published. Lords amendments Nos. 72, 76 and 110 create a clear duty for the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and the independent regulator of NHS foundation trusts to co-operate in the exercising of their functions. However, it remains unlikely that the independent regulator would be regularly in receipt of information about the quality of health care provided because it will not inspect—inspection will remain the role of the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection. Lords amendment No. 73 provides that the commission has a function, rather than a power, to promote effective co-ordination of reviews and so forth in the provision of health care by, or for, English national health service bodies and cross-border special health authorities.
	Lords amendments Nos. 87 and 92 will provide that the Commission for Social Care Inspection and the National Assembly for Wales will have the function of undertaking studies on value for money in relation to local authorities. Lords amendment No. 79 will strengthen the relationship between the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and the Audit Commission by placing a duty on both to co-operate in areas in which they both have functions. That will reduce the burden of inspection on the NHS.
	Lords amendments Nos. 95 and 96 make it absolutely clear that following the inspection of a boarding school, the Commission for Social Care Inspection or the National Assembly for Wales must publish a report on whether a child's welfare has been adequately safeguarded and promoted. Lords amendment No. 97 makes it clear that the Commission for Social Care Inspection or the Assembly must send a copy of any such report to the school in question.
	Lords amendments Nos. 111 and 112 place a new statutory requirement on the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and the Commission for Social Care Inspection to prepare and publish a code of practice on access, handling, use and disclosure of confidential personal information. Lords amendment No. 102 provides for a clear regulation-making power to require information to be made available to the public about health and social care complaints procedures. Lords amendment No. 113 will strengthen the duty of co-operation between the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and the Assembly to minimise the burden of inspections in cross-border areas.
	Finally, amendment No. 194 and related amendments to schedules 6 and 7 require the Secretary of State to delegate—in practice, it will be to the NHS Appointments Commission—the responsibility for appointing the chair and members of the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and the Commission for Social Care Inspection. That was our policy intention. It is now an explicit requirement.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the purpose of the amendments and for recognising that they respond to sensible and reasonable amendments proposed in the Lords. I thank our colleagues in the other place for raising some of the issues.
	The Minister referred to the Government's policy intention on appointments to the chair and members of the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection and the Commission for Social Care Inspection. I do not recall Ministers being that explicit in Committee, but I am happy that they have accepted the value of specifying that in legislation. Likewise, there was pressure in Committee in another place in respect of how the Commission for Health Improvement and the regulator should co-operate. It should not be at the discretion of CHAI to appoint itself as an advisory body to the regulator and to provide information on its own initiative. It is more reasonable to provide a structure of complementary and parallel duties. My colleagues and other noble Lords in another place put pressure on the Government to ensure that the code of practice on access to information covers other bodies that have access to such information and that they treat it with respect. It is right that the Government accepted that.
	It has been helpful for the Government to accept a range of other substantive suggestions, at least to part 2, made in another place and to respond to arguments. We should recognise that whatever the outcome of our discussions on part 1, we always intended the Bill to proceed in a form that would support not only a restructured audit and inspection system for the health service and social care, but a structure for the establishment of standards. For example, much will hang on the clause in part 2 on quality. If we have a structure of standards based on clinical evidence, peer review and clinical practice—something to which members of the NHS can look for guidance—the Government of any party will, I hope, be able to move towards that as the basis on which people will establish practice in the NHS and against which their performance is genuinely measured, rather than the targets and the bureaucratic structures that have been the Government's preference over the past few years. Part 2 is important and I am happy that we can proceed with it on a more agreed basis.

Paul Burstow: I also want to express my appreciation of my colleagues in the other place who worked diligently in Committee and at other stages to draw out some of the issues that the Minister responded to by accepting the Lords amendments. In particular, I highlight the important concession on co-operation between the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection, the regulator and the Audit Commission. That will help to lighten the burden of the regulation appropriately. In Committee, we touched on the powers of the Commission for Social Care Inspection to report and alter aspects of how a school or college discharges its duties. The other place deliberated on that in a little more detail in Committee, for which we are grateful.
	 Finally, I wonder whether the Minister could tell us whether the Government plan to consult on issues of convergence of standards, which I understand were debated in the other place on 10 November. Have those consultations started, and what will the timetable be? It would be useful to know at an early stage the timetable for publishing the codes of practice that will apply to both new commissions. We welcome the architecture we have arrived at for inspection and regulation. The final step will be to have only one body that is capable of regulating and inspecting both health and social care.

Stephen Ladyman: I am pleased that we have broad support for the concessions that the Government have made. I hear what the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) says about the possibility of having a single body for inspection. The Bill contains a duty for the CHAI and the CSCI to co-operate, so I hope that they will work closely together on many issues. Whether we will ever reach the point of having one body will be for some future Minister to worry about. The hon. Gentleman asked about specific timing issues. I will obtain that information for him and write to him.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 66 to 113 agreed to [some with Special Entry].

Clause 149
	 — 
	Information contained in certificates

Lords amendment: No. 114, in page 68, line 17, at end insert "or regulations under subsection (8B)".

Rosie Winterton: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 115 to 120.

Rosie Winterton: The amendments cover part 3 of the Bill, which provides for the recovery of NHS charges. All the amendments deal with issues raised and debated at length in Committee and in the other place. Amendments Nos. 114 to 119 would enable regulations to be made so that contributory negligence—where the injured party is partially responsible—would be taken into account when calculating NHS costs, if an agreement on that issue has been reached as part of a settlement of a personal injury claim through a prescribed mediation process, as endorsed by the court. The Bill already contains provision for that purpose.

Simon Burns: Will the regulations be made under the affirmative or the negative procedure?

Rosie Winterton: They will be made under the negative procedure. It was argued, persuasively, in the other place that in the present climate—in which the courts urge parties at least to consider other ways to deal with disputes—there was a case for considering whether some of the alternative dispute resolution procedures, especially mediation, should be included in the processes that could be accepted as a means of confirming contributory negligence findings for the purpose of calculating NHS costs. The Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers will be able to make regulations covering issues such as the qualifications of the mediator, the nature of the mediation process and the types of statement about contributory negligence that would be needed to be included in the mediation.

Andrew Lansley: Last week I was able to attend the annual general meeting of the Cambridge and District Community Mediation Service. May I make a plea that the Government think positively about ways in which they can support such services' core funding? That is a continuing problem for such organisations, which provide a valuable alternative dispute resolution procedure that we want to use in future if we can.

Rosie Winterton: From my previous post in the Lord Chancellor's Department, I am aware of the many benefits offered by mediation.
	Lords amendment No. 120 will make it possible to issue a further certificate specifying a higher amount in NHS costs than a previous certificate only if the reason for the increase is that incorrect or insufficient information had previously been supplied by the person to whom the certificate is issued. Therefore, if a clerical error is made by the scheme's administrators, no further certificate for the correct amount, if that is higher than the amount specified in the original certificate, can be issued. That means that compensators will not have to pay the price of a mistake by the administrators.
	Amendments to change the level of parliamentary scrutiny afforded to some of the regulation-making powers in part 3 were also made in the other place in response both to concerns raised and to recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

Simon Burns: Given the pressure of time, I shall be extremely brief.
	We warmly welcome the Government's acceptance of the amendments, which, I understand, followed arguments made in another place by my noble Friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. As the Minister said, it is important to encourage the use of mediation where such a system is feasible in order to minimise some of the problems that might arise if that additional battery of weapons to resolve disputes is not available. For that reason, we are pleased that the Government have accepted the amendments.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 115 to 120 agreed to.
	It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings on remaining Lords amendments, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
	Lords amendment No. 161 disagreed to.
	Government amendments (a) to (bb) to the words so restored agreed to.
	Remaining Lords amendments agreed to [some with Special Entry].
	Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments Nos. 1, 5, 26, 28 and 29: Mr. Paul Burstow, Mr. John Hutton, Mr. Andrew Lansley, Joan Ryan and Claire Ward; Mr. John Hutton to be Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Joan Ryan.]
	To withdraw immediately.
	Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Order [10 November].
	On resuming—

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
	That, at this day's sitting, the consideration of any Lords Messages and Amendments that may be received may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Vernon Coaker.]
	Question agreed to.
	Sitting suspended, pursuant to Order [10 November].
	On resuming—

Criminal Justice Bill

Lords Reasons for insisting on certain of their amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must acquaint the House with the fact that a message has been received from the House of Lords. The Lords insist on certain of their amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill to which the Commons have disagreed, for which insistence they assign their reasons. They do not insist on certain amendments to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the amendments proposed by the Commons to the words so restored to the Bill. They do not insist on their remaining amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.

Clause 41
	 — 
	Application by Defendant for Trial to be Conducted without Jury

Lords Reason: 32B.

Paul Goggins: I beg to move, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment (a) to the words restored, Lords Reason 33G, the Government motion to insist and Government amendments (a) to (h) to the words restored, Lords Reason 34C, the Government motion to insist and Government amendments (a) to (e) to the words restored and Lords Reason 36C, the Government motion to insist and Government amendments (a) to (d) to the words restored.

Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to raise this issue as a point of order, but we never know when we might get the chance to do so, given the current funny situation. I wish to draw your attention to an answer that I received today from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). The question, tabled on 6 March this year, was to ask the Home Secretary what the administrative costs were of active community unit grants, race equality grants and refugee integration unit grants in the last financial year. I received an answer this evening from the Under-Secretary, saying:
	"I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy . . . in the Library."
	Is that the way an effective Government operate? It is now November.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and he has now got it firmly on the record. As we have only an hour for the current business, we should proceed without delay.

Paul Goggins: At this stage of the parliamentary process, hon. Members, no doubt, will be looking for a degree of compromise and agreement, wherever that may be possible. In that spirit, the Government are prepared to make a number of concessions that, we hope, will meet some of the concerns that have been expressed.
	Clause 41 will provide defendants with the option, subject to the court's consent, to opt for judge-alone trial. It will give defendants a choice that they do not currently have about the way in which they are tried. The Government have been somewhat bemused by the hostility with which that provision has been attacked in some quarters. However, we have listened to the arguments, and we have tabled an amendment, the effect of which will be to give the judge discretion in deciding whether to grant a defendant's application for judge-alone trial. That amendment will alter subsection (3), so that the judge may, instead of must, make an order.

Douglas Hogg: Can a copy of that amendment be found in the Vote Office? I have just been given a series of papers that does not include that amendment.

Paul Goggins: I am sure that others who are better placed will be able to check whether that is true, but I understand that the relevant amendment is available, and I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been unable to find it. I shall press on.
	The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) criticised our earlier amendments to clause 42, to restrict the application of the clause to serious fraud trials, on the ground that they removed some of the judicial discretion contained in the original draft. That was certainly not our intention, nor, I submit, is it the effect. The further amendment that we now propose, however, would confer on the judge an absolute discretion in relation to the making of an order for non-jury trial under this clause. We are also providing further safeguards by requiring the judge to consult the Lord Chief Justice, or a judge nominated by him, before making an order that the trial be conducted in the absence of a jury.
	Clauses 43 and 45 deal with the pernicious problem of jury tampering. We listened to the argument made yesterday by the Opposition. Again, in the spirit of constructive dialogue, we propose an amendment—the removal of the second condition set out in subsection (5)—which we hope will satisfy the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. We consider the burden on the jury imposed by necessarily intrusive police protection to be a very real problem. As I said, however, we have listened to what has been said and, like Opposition Members, our main concern is to ensure a fair trial, which is of course ensured by the condition set out in subsection (6).
	On clause 45, we do not believe that continuation of a trial following discharge of a jury because of tampering will necessarily be a "non-starter", as suggested by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. Clearly, a judge who felt unable to continue a trial alone because he felt that he would not be able to hear it with the requisite impartiality, or who thought for some other reason that the defendant would not receive a fair trial, would not be obliged to do so. That established principle is already reflected in the Bill. I hope, however, that our proposed amendments will allay a good many of the Opposition's concerns by making it absolutely plain that the judge will not be able to continue the trial sitting alone unless he is satisfied not only that jury tampering has actually taken place but that the defendant will receive a fair trial. We have also amended the clause to increase the discretion of the judge in this matter.
	Having covered the technical detail of the amendments, I want to address the wider issues of this debate. It seems to me that the Opposition are prepared to threaten this House and the electorate of this country with the possible loss of this Bill. We are not surprised that that is the case, given the comments of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on 15 July:
	"I don't think there is anything in this bill that is to the great benefit of mankind. If it is lost, it is a price worth paying to protect trial by jury."
	He therefore made his position clear. I was somewhat surprised to read in this morning's Financial Times the comment by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield that "If he"—the Home Secretary—
	"fails to compromise he may not get his bill."
	Both the former shadow Home Secretary and the shadow Attorney-General therefore threaten the House with the loss of this Bill.
	Let me remind hon. Members precisely of what that threat entails. Loss of this Bill would mean the loss of tougher sentences for those who commit murder, and the loss of tougher sentences for those who carry out dangerous sexual and violent offices, with no release if they still pose a risk to the public. It would mean the loss of a new five-year minimum sentence for firearms offences to help tackle gun crime, and the loss of longer sentences for dangerous drivers who kill—

Edward Garnier: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems to me—you may agree or disagree—that the Minister is engaging in a wider debate than is permitted under this amendment. It is of quite a narrow structure—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Those are matters for the Chair.

Edward Garnier: I am just trying to help.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am very grateful for the hon. and learned Gentleman's kind offer of help, but I think that we can now proceed.

Paul Goggins: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments are always helpful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	The loss of the Bill would mean losing measures to crack down on bail bandits and to tackle reoffending on bail. It would mean losing the extension of drug testing and treatment provision. It would mean that the possibility of the police, prisons, probation service and victims having a voice in sentencing for the first time ever would be lost. It would mean losing the enhancement of jury trial by ensuring that juries better reflect all sections of society and the abolition of the automatic right of exemption.

Douglas Hogg: Will the Minister give way?

Paul Goggins: No, I will not give way.

Douglas Hogg: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has made it clear that he is not giving way at this point.

Paul Goggins: I am not giving way because we have a short time for debate. Earlier this afternoon, there was criticism that there was insufficient time for people to make their contributions. I intend to make available every minute possible for other hon. Members to contribute.
	In the light of the comments that I have just made, I submit to the House that if the Opposition continue to resist—

Robert Marshall-Andrews: rose—

Paul Goggins: If the Opposition continue to resist—

Robert Marshall-Andrews: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When a Member seeks to intervene, he must not remain on his feet indefinitely if the Minister is not giving way.

Paul Goggins: I have explained why I am not giving way.
	If the Opposition continue to resist, they will bring the Bill down and the people of Britain will know it.

Dominic Grieve: As I am conscious that we have reached a stage in the proceedings on the Bill when, perhaps inevitably, tempers may get frayed, I wish first to put on record my thanks to the Minister and to Baroness Scotland for the opportunity they have provided us with for dialogue on this very difficult piece of legislation. I am genuinely grateful for that opportunity, in exactly the same way as I have been genuinely grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has conducted the Bill, which covers a wide range of topics. Undoubtedly, some of them are important, and I also believe that this legislation has the potential to do good. I am absolutely clear about that, and I want to make clear to the Minister my thanks to him in particular for this evening's opportunity to talk.
	It is really with some regret that I have to say to the Minister that, notwithstanding that, the amendments that the Government have tabled—I shall come to them in a moment, because I shall have no difficulty in welcoming them as steps in the right direction—unfortunately do not go far enough in my view and that of my colleagues to meet the issues that the House has to consider.
	The Minister quoted a statement that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) made on 15 July. The quote was correct, but the Government cannot be surprised about the state into which they have got themselves on the Bill. We have been saying for a very long time that there are issues surrounding jury trial and bad character that are of fundamental importance to the way in which justice is discharged in this country. We are coming to the point when this touches on matters of conscience. When that happens, it is perhaps no surprise that we get into a situation in which agreement becomes very difficult.
	I went to the other place this afternoon to listen to some of the comments that were made. The one that struck me most was from the ex-Attorney-General, Lord Morris. Although out of loyalty he suggested that he felt that the Government should have their way—a view I cannot share—he nevertheless went to the heart of the issue when he said that the Government were setting out to undermine jury trial and that that would be the result of what they were doing. Although I believed that we might be quite close to coming to a sensible outcome on the issue of jury trial, I very much regret that that outcome unfortunately still appears to elude us.
	This is the Government's Bill and at some point they will have to make some decisions. They will have to decide whether a compromise can be reached so that a good piece of legislation can be placed on the statute book, about which I would be happy to say that although I regret some details, it is of benefit. However, if the Bill comes up against the conscience of many Members of this House and the other place, it will founder. I tell the Minister that if a satisfactory outcome is not reached, it will not be for lack of trying on my part. Although we have not reached an agreement, I rejoice that his willingness to table amendments this evening indicates that the Government are willing to engage in the process.

Douglas Hogg: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is quite scandalous for the Under-Secretary to suggest that if the House of Lords persists in its view, the Bill is necessarily lost? That is not true. The Government could concede on these two small matters and the Bill would be saved.

Dominic Grieve: The matter is entirely in the hands of the Government. Of course, it is right to say that the constitution of this country as it stands at present, and especially that of the other place, is the Government's creation. It does not behove them to criticise the other place for exercising its constitutional rights because they have no grounds to do so.

John Gummer: Surely my hon. Friend is being too kind to the Government. They always want it both ways. They want us to accept the other place that they have created when that is convenient, but when it is inconvenient, they suggest that because it is an unelected body we cannot listen to it. Surely they have to make up their mind on the constitution as well as the Bill.

Dominic Grieve: My right hon. Friend is right. I do not wish to widen the scope of the debate because I want to concentrate on the amendments, but it is true that the Minister made some intemperate comments toward the end of his speech. Given the lateness of the hour and the process through which we have been, however, that is fairly forgivable. Nevertheless, there is no point in criticising Members of the other place, including many Government Back Benchers, for doing their job in accordance with their consciences and views.
	I shall put on the record the problems that remain. We indicated previously that we remain of the view that clause 41—"Application by defendant for trial to be conducted without jury"—is entirely ill conceived and will lead to the trial process being brought into disrepute by forum shopping. Unfortunately, the tendency of judges to acquire a reputation on specific cases to which forum shopping will befall would be exploited. On top of that, the clause will deprive members of the public who form juries of the opportunity to decide on the guilt or innocence of their peers, which is as important as the right of the protection of a defendant through a jury trial. That situation would be quite wrong, and the Government will find that judges who sit alone will acquit, which will lead to public outrage that would not occur if a jury tried the case. We remain absolutely clear in our minds that clause 41 must go in its totality and must not be seen again.

Edward Garnier: My hon. Friend suggests that some judges might acquit—well, they might. However, equally there will be case-hardened judges who could take a prejudiced view on specific defences and lines of evidence, which would be antipathetic to the interests of justice and defendants. Would my hon. Friend care not only to nail his colours to the mast on acquitting judges, but concern himself with the fact that justice requires a fair trial for both the prosecution and the defendant?

Dominic Grieve: My hon. and learned Friend is right. It could be said that as the trial process in front of a judge alone is the defendant's choice, on his head be it. It is a bit difficult for him to complain about the judge being hard on him. I prefer to see the other side of the coin, however, which is the extent to which the public may express grave disquiet at decisions that are taken by judges sitting alone in criminal cases which the public do not understand and where justice is not seen to be done. That is the merit of juries. We should have nothing to do with the issue of individuals having choices.

Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify one simple thing for me? Is it now Tory party policy to campaign to abolish the non-jury Diplock courts, which have worked successfully in Northern Ireland without the sun and the moon falling in?

Dominic Grieve: I reassure the hon. Lady that it is nothing of the kind. If she bears with me, I will provide her with complete reassurance on that when I deal with jury tampering, which is the relevant issue with regard to Diplock courts. We are not talking about a situation in which it is necessary to have a trial in front of a judge alone because no fair trial could otherwise take place. Mercifully, England and Wales have not had the same problem as Northern Ireland.
	The other concern relates to applications by prosecution for certain complex or lengthy trials to be conducted without a jury. The Minister made some concessions on that and I acknowledge that they are important. The possibility of a review by the Lord Chief Justice and the possibility of a discretion to the judge not to allow a trial to take place without a jury are helpful. However, the Serious Fraud Office has a conviction rate in excess of 90 per cent. The number of trials that will fall within that category are minute, especially in the light of the Government's amendments.
	Trials have not collapsed because of the difficulties of finding juries. Juries can be found. There is, therefore, no justification for keeping clause 42. If that clause were to go, I have no doubt that our tasks in relation to the Bill would be immeasurably simplified. The proposals to curtail the right to trial by jury in fraud trials are fundamentally flawed. Although I accept that the Government's amendments are a minor improvement, they do not go to the heart of the issue.

Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend welcomed the inclusion of a review by the Lord Chief Justice. Perhaps he might care to reconsider that because what is being proposed is a private word with the Lord Chief Justice. No one will know what he has said and no one will have the opportunity to address him. That is private justice of a most unsatisfactory kind.

Dominic Grieve: I have no doubt that anyone who reads what the Lord Chief Justice said on Second Reading—

Douglas Hogg: That is not the point.

Dominic Grieve: I will get to that. No one could doubt that the Lord Chief Justice has the interests of justice and judicial discretion at heart. The concession is not good enough, but it is better than a poke in the eye.

Douglas Hogg: It is private justice.

Dominic Grieve: It is still marginally better than what was on offer before. I do not give the concession greater praise than that. If I did, I might be minded to reconsider clause 42, but I am not and nor are my colleagues.
	The final issues relate to the application by prosecution for trial to be conducted without a jury if there is a danger of jury tampering. Although I continue to have concerns about that, the Minister has gone a considerable way to provide reassurance. In the case of an application to discontinue jury trial even before the first trial has started, the amendments tabled are improved by removing the second condition in clause 42(5), and I accept that. However, I still believe that the test for deciding whether such a trial should go ahead is not high enough. The Minister knows the amendments that we tabled earlier and they remain, to my mind, the acceptable model. However, the Minister and the Government have gone a long way to provide reassurance. I am sorry that in the totality of the matter it is not sufficient.
	In the case of discharge of the jury because of jury tampering, I am again pleased that the Minister has made certain concessions and I accept that they may have been reached with great difficulty. Nevertheless, they are worthy concessions. It remains the case that the test of whether it is necessary in the interests of justice for the trial to be terminated is not sufficiently high. That is perhaps a minor issue and the Government have come even closer to satisfying us on that—although still not close enough.
	The Government have tabled amendments, and that is productive in the process of trying to come to an agreement. I am willing to continue that process. I would like to see the Bill on the statute book, but nothing will induce me to take a step that would allow that as long as the fundamental flaws in it—especially in relation to clauses 41 and 42—remain. Those clauses should not be in the legislation. It is such a fundamental issue that it makes it impossible—I say this with regret—to reach agreement with the Government this evening.

Simon Hughes: The Bill started its passage through Parliament on 21 November last year, when it had its First Reading in the House of Commons. We took six months to deal with it, finishing on 20 May. The following day it went to the Lords, and they finished their work on it on Monday 17 November. They did their job well, as we tried to do ours. Only yesterday did we have the chance to consider for the first time the changes that the Lords had made. We did so carefully, although within a guillotined time limit. We sent back to the Lords a variety of matters, after eight votes.
	Only four substantive matters remain, out of a Bill of 307 clauses and 30 schedules. Of 14 parts, only two are still controversial—four clauses in part 7 to do with jury trial and 16 clauses in part 11 to do with bad character, reputation and evidence. I say to the Minister in the same spirit that has followed the Bill throughout its passage that it cannot be impossible for people of good will to negotiate an agreement that allows the Government, who have already secured agreement on 12 of the 14 parts of the Bill, 287 of the 307 clauses and all the schedules, to reach an agreement on those that are outstanding in the hours that remain of this Parliament.
	We did not determine that the matter should be finished by tomorrow: the Government chose that. Like the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats have appreciated the discussions with Ministers at all stages. Like Conservative, Labour and Independent peers, Liberal Democrats have participated in those discussions and made our position clear. The Government must understand that in this Parliament there are two Chambers, both of which are entitled to have their say. It is a Parliament of the Government's making. Indeed, the second Chamber is explicitly of this Government's making and they therefore have to accept that it has the right to have its say, as we do.
	Let me make our position clear on the matters that remain. The amendments tabled represent progress—they are an improvement. However, on the two substantive matters to which they relate—jury trial and bad character—the Government have not yet addressed fundamental concerns that have caused opposition on both sides of this House and of the House of Lords. Let me make it clear how the Government will have to proceed. I hope they will do so, and if they do, we shall respond in the hours that remain.
	The Government must accept that making only the minimal alteration to clause 41, "Application by defendant for trial to be conducted without jury", and giving the judge discretion means, by definition, that there will, at least on a regular basis, be the possibility of non-jury trial for the most serious offences in cases that clearly produce two types of serious trial in this country. Instead of the respected institution of the jury—12 people—making a decision, a judge will make the decision alone in some cases. That judge would come with a reputation and would be in a far more invidious position than any judge is now. The change is not necessary. The reason it should be resisted, which I hope the Government will accept, is that it eats into the principle that we in this country have jury trial for serious cases, and the defendant—not the Government or the judge—chooses.
	We debated yesterday at great length clause 42 and whether serious fraud cases were better dealt with by judge or by jury. The logic of the Government again coming up with a proposal that gives a discretion to the court seems to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and me—we have examined the matter carefully—to be that if the tests that remain in the Bill are passed, the judge will be driven to decide that the case can be a judge-only case. That outcome is the presumed outcome. Yes, the provision for an application to the Lord Chief Justice provides a threshold, but as the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, that application is made without criteria or public debate, and as a result there is no necessity for decisions or reasons for those decisions to be stated publicly.

Douglas Hogg: It is more offensive than that, because the relevant parties to the litigation do not have an opportunity to address the Lord Chief Justice.

Simon Hughes: That appears also to be the case.

Edward Garnier: Have the Government applied their mind to the time available to the Lord Chief Justice? He is already a busy man; is he expected to throw away his existing list in order to deal with the applications of a private nature that the hon. Gentleman is describing?

Simon Hughes: If there were a real issue—if we as a country had great difficulty securing convictions in serious fraud cases—that might be a matter that should daily command the attention of the Lord Chief Justice. However, serious fraud cases are not ones in which convictions are not regularly successfully achieved: 90 per cent. result in convictions—a higher proportion than in any other category of case heard before judge and jury. The Government are inventing a mischief in order to propose a solution, and their solution is the loss of jury trial. A defendant who happens to be charged with fraud may suddenly lose the right to a jury trial, with no say at all.
	I hope that we have made it clear to Ministers that we have arrived at our position for all sorts of reasons, not only history, success and reputation, but because of the danger that once the principle that serious cases should go before juries is broken into for some serious cases today, it is possible to argue that it should be done for other serious cases tomorrow. Lesser cases do not go to juries; the change that we are debating would be the beginning of serious cases not going to juries, and defendants would have no say in that. If the Minister believes that that will enhance criminal justice and the reputation of the good parts of the criminal justice system, he is sadly mistaken. I am sure that, in their heart of hearts, he and his colleagues do not believe that.
	On jury tampering, I also welcome the concessions that have been made. I think that there is scope for agreement on the wording. I accept that there are cases where it may be necessary, when attempt after attempt has been made to have a jury trial and people have interfered, to pull the plug. That may be necessary when everything else has been tried. I think that the Government now accept that and that they are moving in the right direction. We are prepared to work on some wording in relation to clauses 43 and 45.
	I hope that the House is making it clear that clauses 41 and 42 are not a necessary precondition of the Bill passing through this place. I hope that the Minister understands that if the Government choose to pull the Bill because they cannot get their way on these two clauses, that will be the Government's choice, not our choice. It will be a choice that is not consistent with the reputation and the view of the British people, who trust jury trial more than they trust a single administration in the government of this country. I hope that the Government will realise that the reputation of the criminal justice system deserves better treatment, and that they will think again. We are willing to do so, and I hope that they will do so too.

Brian Sedgemore: I can be exceedingly brief.
	Although I do not want to embarrass him, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase), who sits beside me, said just now that a jury trial is the criminal classes trying the criminals. I do not agree with that. However, having heard my hon. Friend the Minister speak, I was reminded that Gladstone once said of Disraeli that his only principle was lack of principle. We are not discussing a Bill that is bobbing between two Houses with people trying to come to some convenient solution. We are discussing a fundamental principle. If we lose sight of that, it seems to me that we lose sight of what justice and liberty are about.
	I was not involved in consideration of the Bill in Committee, but I have read the reports of all the proceedings. It seems that most of the statements that have come from the Home Secretary have been both banal and didactic. An argument must be constructed before cursing people who disagree with a proposal. Perhaps one of the problems in this debate is that most of us can agree that we have the worst Home Secretary for the past 100 years, but some of us are suspicious that we may have the worst Home Secretary for the next 100 years. That is not good enough, and I do not say that in jest.

Lady Hermon: rose—

Brian Sedgemore: There are many Labour Back Benchers whose views I respect who are saying that making this intervention into jury trials is not an important issue. That is not the history of the Labour party since the Representation Committee was formed more than 100 years ago.
	People have different sticking points in politics. I can only say that this is one of my big sticking points, and I would hope that it is a big sticking point for all my colleagues. My researchers have gone through all their election addresses individually since 1997, and none of them has advocated the abolition of jury trials in his or her election manifestos. What is this all about? Why are we striving might and main, according to the Home Secretary, to deal with about 20, 25, 30, 40 or 50 cases a year? I say for myself that I am debating whether it is worth while taking the Whip of a political party that will make a fundamental interference in liberty and justice.

Douglas Hogg: We have been told by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), for whom I have the greatest respect and against whom I have frequently appeared in court in the past, that we have the worst Home Secretary, probably for 200 years. I am bound to say that I think that he is probably right. The Home Secretary is one of the most illiberal individuals whom I have had the misfortune to listen to since I entered the House of Commons. I hope very much that the House of Lords will stick to its position. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) set out the detailed arguments, strongly reinforced by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, so I do not have to repeat them. I agree with them. I shall just make three points.

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for taking an intervention, as the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) did not do so, which I regret. May I say on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland that the present Home Secretary is regarded as a very brave and courageous Home Secretary, precisely because when the Bill was first drafted, it did not extend to Northern Ireland. It was the Home Secretary, at the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and myself, who agreed to extend key provisions to Northern Ireland. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman please explain to me and to the people of Northern Ireland why he and his party do not object to non-jury Diplock courts, but continue to object to non-jury trials in respect of a small issue?

Douglas Hogg: The last thing I want to do is to be critical of the hon. Lady, for whom I have the greatest respect, but last night my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield set out in considerable detail why we thought it right to retain the Diplock trials in the Province. I share that view. The special circumstances in the Province justify them. As for thinking that the Home Secretary is a brave and liberal chap, he may have his virtues, but liberality is not among them. He is one of the most illiberal Home Secretaries I have had the misfortune to see or read about in all my study of politics and history.
	I shall make three points, the first of which relates to clause 41. Let us be clear about it. The effect of the Government's provision is to create a presumption against jury trials. I do not believe that a liberal Government should be doing that. We are given a concession: the word "may" is to be introduced into the Bill instead of the word "must", but there are no criteria of any kind. It has not advanced the cause one little bit. The presumption is still against jury trials, and for the reasons advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield tonight and yesterday, that is deeply offensive.
	Clause 42 is a spectacular own goal on the part of the Government. What is being offered by way of a compromise is a private conversation between the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice. I entirely agree with the kind remarks made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) about the Lord Chief Justice, but the idea that a trial can be regulated through a private word is bizarre. The people who are being tried have a right to say something about their position. What is proposed is a private word between two judicial figures, with the people actively involved being utterly deprived of any opportunity to make representations, and the ultimate decision being no doubt motivated by the decision of the Lord Chief Justice, which will never be announced to anybody. If that does not offend the principles of fair trial, I cannot think what does.

Edward Garnier: My right hon. and learned Friend and I recall that in the last Parliament the Government were keen that we should pass the Human Rights Act 1998, which brought into domestic law the European convention. He and I also remember that article 6 brings with it into domestic law a right that the common law already recognises—the right to a fair trial. If a trial is to be continued through the means of a private conversation between the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice we know not where and when, surely that conflicts with article 6 and the Human Rights Act.

Douglas Hogg: Manifestly so, and my hon. and learned Friend and I will have great fun with that, should the matter come before courts in which we are engaged. The prospect of the forum being determined as a result of a private conversation is deeply offensive.
	I want to make two further points. First, in what I suppose passed for his peroration, the Under-Secretary told the House that, if the House of Lords stuck to its views, the entire Bill would be lost. That is complete rubbish; it does not even begin to approximate to the truth. The reality is that, if the Government want to make a concession on the several clauses involved, they can do so, and the Bill will then be saved. The Bill will be lost only if they refuse to make a concession, so I have the very nasty feeling that the House has been a trifle misled—would that be an appropriate word, Mr. Deputy Speaker?—as to the impact of the position that we are adopting tonight.
	Finally, I would commend to the Under-Secretary, his officials and his Front Bench colleagues a little modesty. The plain truth is that, in the other place, by a very substantial majority, the noble Lords have expressed their view. It was largely a free view, unconstrained by the Whip and expressed by those who know something about the matter and are not seeking jobs. I am bound to say that that view has a greater legitimacy in my eyes than that of Labour Members, bound by the Whips, most of whom are looking for jobs. I prefer the views of those in the other place in this matter. They know what they are talking about and they have not been bought by ambition.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: There is not a great deal that I can add to this highly polemical and very instructive debate, except this: I have prosecuted the worst of them—

Chris Ruane: The Tories.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Many of them, funnily enough, are Tories.
	I have prosecuted the worst of them and I have defended the worst of them, and I have gloried in the successes and suffered the defeats in that respect. I come here to defend the jury system only because it is part of us, not because it is anything else. It is part of us inasmuch as this Chamber is part of us. It brings together an enormously eclectic number of people in order to judge their fellow citizens. The idea that they are not capable of doing it is an insult to them and an insult to us. We are an extraordinarily eclectic group of people. The days when the squirearchy came here to sit on the Tory Benches and to patronise the representatives of organised labour on this side of the House are all gone. [Interruption.] Of course, they have toffs on those Benches, and let me say straight away that we have toffs on our side as well.
	We have become a glorious and eclectic mix of people and we trust ourselves to wrestle with the most profound, difficult and sometimes incomprehensible legislation. One message that I have is: for God's sake trust the jury system, which has served us for 800 years. The idea that juries do not understand the complexities of fraud trials is an insult to juries and an insult to those who have lived with them for 800 years. Nobody in the business or game would support that view. It is borne out by juries' high conviction rate; they know dishonesty and fraud when they see them.
	Let us support the system that has served us so well, and stop, at this stage, any erosion of this great liberty that we have. There were those who said that we should do away with jury trial for the least serious offences, and we beat them back twice in the last Parliament. Now, they have come back and said that we should do that with the most serious offences. Had we lost last time, we would now be squeezing into 800 years of liberty a tiny section of criminal activity, which would be wholly unacceptable.
	I want to finish on the question of jury nobbling. The jury is the strength of the system, not its weakness. It is almost impossible to corrupt 12 people, whether with money, bribery, threat or violence—that simply does not exist—but it is possible to corrupt, bribe or threaten one man. The great strength of our system is that it involves 12 people. In a very long life of crime—I used that phrase the other day as a joke, but the point is true—I have never known a jury to be corrupted or distorted to the extent that an unjust verdict was delivered. But if I were asked whether, if the Bill goes through, I could say that the prospect is that I will never see a single judge corrupted or bribed, I would describe that as myopia.
	This country's glorious and wonderful system has been copied and adulated throughout the world. The House—on both sides—should resist with every sinew and vein of its body any attempt to erode what we have.

John Gummer: As so often, the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) has put his finger on the pulse of the nation. I have great respect for him, which is why I want to address him very directly. Throughout all these debates, he has heard that only those whose commitment is to the Government Whip have supported him. All those who have taken, and can take, an independent view have opposed him. That means that he is about to do something extremely dangerous, which is to decide—or to attempt to decide—the future of English justice not by listening to all the voices and coming to a common position that the whole nation can support, but by agreeing with a pre-judgment of the Home Secretary.
	My concern is that although I have listened to such debates recently and when we previously discussed these matters, I have never heard a proper argument that stands up, and the people outside have never heard such an argument. That matters more than anything else, as British justice works because the British people believe it to be just. The jury is a crucial part of that. [Interruption.] If the hon. Lady would not speak but perhaps listen, she might hear something. I know that she listens to what the Whips say and votes as they tell her, but will she listen to the fact that no independent in the other House has considered that the case is proved? In a court, a case has to be proved, and in this court the case has to be proved.
	The court of Parliament ought to take seriously the fact that we need jury trials to give people confidence in the justice of British justice. I hope that the Under-Secretary will reflect on the fact that he has it in his hands to make British justice continue to be respected. He should not put in peril the whole of the Bill because he wants to do the work of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has shown himself unable to understand what 800 years of history mean. He is out of touch with the view of the general public. Will the Under-Secretary change the world by standing up for the general view instead of his boss's view?

Edward Garnier: There are two ways to look at the problem that the Government face when considering whether the jury system should be maintained. First, does it accord with principle, and, secondly, is it of practical utility? The experience of those of us who have practised in the courts before criminal juries and civil juries suggests that it works. There is a collective common sense that exists in a jury made up of 12 of our citizens randomly chosen.
	Of course, it is inconvenient for the Government. Of course, it is expensive and, of course, the Treasury will apply pressure on the Lord Chancellor's Department, or whatever it is called nowadays, to increase the rate at which trials are conducted so that they are more economically efficient, but it seems that that conflicts with the principle of whether, by removing trial by jury—[Interruption.] I know that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department finds this immensely amusing. She is laughing at the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety. Perhaps she has good reason to laugh at her, but let me return to the issue. If we are to remove the trial by jury system, we have to be convinced that the principle that lies behind it should be thrown away.
	I am not going to go into a history lesson at this late hour. Many of those who support the jury system trace it back into the mists of mediaeval history. I do not need to do that. I need rely only on the principle that exists today—that in order for the criminal justice system to receive the consent of the public and, more important, the agreement of those who are tried, it is important that those who are tried are tried by their peers, wherever that is possible.
	As someone who tries criminals or those who are accused of crimes, and who has to deal with cases in partnership with a jury, I do not see prisoners, shackled and handcuffed, who are reluctant to be tried by their peers. I see people who would rather not be in a criminal court, but when they are convicted and sentenced they accept that the process is legitimate and that the people who have found them guilty are not distant, separated officials of the state but their equals.
	The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) jokingly referred—I am afraid that jokes do not go down terribly well with his colleagues at the moment—to there being toffs on both sides of the House and to other sorts of people on both sides of the House. He will find reflected in the ordinary jury people of all walks of life and of different political and other opinions, who come together as a group of 12 to decide the guilt or innocence of the individual whose liberty they are required to consider. That does not seem to have occurred to the Government or to the ministerial team, who seem to celebrate in denigrating the one aspect of the criminal justice system that meets most closely with democracy and with what we are supposed to stand for in the Chamber—namely, a representative democracy, whether it be in the making of laws or in the application of laws. It is a poorer House of Commons—a poorer Parliament—that refuses to accept that the jury system works and is something that can be sustained and celebrated by reason of principle. It is a revolting Government—a Government who ought to be abhorred and despised—who cannot see the wisdom of experience and common sense that is to be found in the ordinary English jury.
	I trust that the House will sustain the Lords in their objections to the Government's refusal to accept common sense and popular wisdom.

Paul Goggins: The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said that only small changes needed to be made to clause 42. I do not agree that they are small changes, but, if they are, why is he not prepared to go that extra distance to make the kind of agreement—

Dominic Grieve: If I may correct the Minister, I think that he must have misunderstood. We have said consistently that clause 42 is fundamentally flawed and should not be in the Bill.

Paul Goggins: The hon. Gentleman has made his views clear.
	The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) described my colleagues who have supported this aspect of the Bill—indeed, the whole Bill—as people who were shackled to the Whips. Frankly, I know that they vote—
	It being one hour after the commencement of consideration, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [18 November].

Question put, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in the said amendment:—
	The House divided: Ayes 332, Noes 220.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Government amendment (a) to the words restored agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments Nos. 33, 34 and 36.—[Mr. Heppell.]
	The House divided: Ayes 331, Noes 215.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 33 disagreed to.
	Government amendments (a) to (h) to the words restored agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 34 disagreed to.
	Government amendments (a) to (e) to the words restored agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 36 disagreed to.
	Government amendments (a) to (d) to the words restored agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments Nos. 114 to 119 and 121 to 131.—[Mr. Heppell.]
	The House divided: Ayes 339, Noes 216.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords Amendment No. 114 disagreed to.

Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will know that because of the timetable imposed by the Government the second group of amendments—which has now been rejected and which comprised the Law Commission's proposals—has not been discussed at all. Would it be possible to ask those who are drafting the message to the other place to make it plain that we have rejected its views without even having had the courtesy of discussing them?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The practice and tradition is that the message reflects simply the decisions of this House. That is not a matter for debate.
	Government amendments (a) to (n) to the words restored, and consequential Government amendments (o) to (q) agreed to.
	Question, That this House does not insist on its disagreement to Lords amendment No. 120, put and agreed to.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Order [10 November].
	On resuming—

Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill

Lords Reasons for insisting on certain of their amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must acquaint the House with the fact that a message has been received from the House of Lords. The Lords insist on certain of their amendments to the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill to which the Commons have disagreed, for which insistence they assign their reasons. They do not insist on an amendment to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the amendment proposed by the Commons to the words so restored to the Bill. They agree to the Commons amendments to certain Lords amendments and they do not insist on their remaining amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.

Michael Fallon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you confirm that, as the House is now destined to sit tomorrow, the Sessional Orders will apply tomorrow and will continue to be applied tomorrow?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: To the best of my knowledge, that is undoubtedly the case. The Serjeant at Arms is aware of the difficulty that might arise if the House is sitting on Thursday. He is in contact with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to ensure that hon. Members have access to the Palace in the normal way.

Douglas Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Obviously, it is essential that hon. Members have access to the House. Surely it would be inconceivable to enforce the Sessional Orders with total strictness so as to prevent the public demonstration. It would be wrong of the House to insist that they be so enforced. That would be an infringement of public rights. I hope that that is not what we have in mind.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that my remarks contained no such implication.

Clause 1
	 — 
	NHS Foundation Trusts

Lords Reason: 1B.

John Hutton: I beg to move, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment (a) to the Bill, Lords Reason 161CC, the Government motion to insist and Government amendments (a) to (bb) to the words restored.

John Hutton: The House of Commons has now approved both the principle and the detail of the Government's proposals on NHS foundation trusts on five separate occasions. The will of this House is now clear, and it should always be the will of this House of Commons that must prevail.
	We should all be clear about one other thing: the only point or purpose in the other place continuing to carry these wrecking amendments is to stop this part of the Bill reaching the statute book. No other reasonable interpretation can be placed on how Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers are behaving. They have nothing new to say on NHS foundation trusts. They have moved no new amendments for this Hosue to consider this evening. They have nothing new to offer. All they are doing is holding up the proverbial parliamentary finger to the decisions that we have made in this House.
	That is not scrutiny. It is not revision of legislation. It is a naked attempt to thwart the democratic decisions of elected Members of Parliament.

Anne Picking: My right hon. Friend and his Front-Bench colleagues will know that earlier tonight I voted against the Government on the particular issue of foundation hospitals. However, that fight has been lost. We are the democratic power in the House. We must decide what happens and I will abide by the collective responsibility of the House. The Lords should have no input in what we do. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

John Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what she has said. It is obvious that we face a simple choice. As I said, the House of Commons has decided, on five occasions, to support the proposals. My hon. Friend did not support them but I understand and respect her genuine concerns about the issue. However, the House of Commons must now assert its predominance and its will in these matters.

Patrick Cormack: There may be many more Tea Room conversions, but in case there are not, will the Minister remind the House of how many Labour Members of Parliament there are and how many of them voted for his proposal earlier this evening?

John Hutton: That will be in Hansard and people can do the arithmetic. I think that about 80 per cent. of my right hon. and hon. Friends decided to support the Government tonight. Mathematics has never been my strong card and I am a simple soul, but that seems to be an overwhelming majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Paul Tyler: A few days ago the Secretary of State for Health said that the House of Lords was not entitled to amend the Bill because the Lords are unelected. Can the Minister of State explain how many Labour Members were elected on a manifesto commitment to introduce foundation hospitals?

John Hutton: That is not what my right hon. Friend said—[Interruption.] No, it is not. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong.
	There is a simple issue for us tonight: whether the will of the House of Commons should prevail. My view is that the decisions that we made in this House should stand.

Alex Salmond: Will the Minister give way?

John Hutton: No, I shall not give way.
	We have looked in detail at every square inch of the measure. We have accepted 90 amendments to part 1. I am afraid that the debate that took place earlier this evening in the House of Lords completely failed to recognise that simple fact. As my noble Friend Lord Warner made clear in the other place earlier tonight, no Government can ever concede to the unelected House the right to tell this elected House what will or will not become the law of our country. There can be no question of the Bill proceeding unless clause 1 and the other provisions in part 1 are included. On that issue—

Alex Salmond: rose—

John Hutton: I am not giving way.
	There can be no negotiation with unelected Conservative—[Hon. Members: "Give way."] I am not giving way—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think it is clear to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan that the Minister is not giving way—[Hon. Members: "Why not?"] It is entirely a matter for any Member whether to give way to another.
	This is acknowledged to be contentious business and the hour is late; it would be better if it were discussed in a calm and moderate manner.

John Hutton: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During our earlier proceedings, the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell)—usually an eloquent and respectful Member of the House—criticised my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for speaking too long. In fact my right hon. Friend gave way to the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends on a generous basis. I am trying to make progress in the debate. I have given way to others but I am not giving way to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).
	There can be no question of the Bill's proceeding unless clause 1 and the other provisions in part 1 are included. We shall not negotiate with Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers on that matter. We will not detach part 1 from the Bill.
	Opposition Members should think very carefully about how they want to proceed, because there is a very great deal at stake: a delay in implementing the new GP contract agreed with the British Medical Association, the loss to the national health service of up to £150 million a year through the provisions relating to the injury cost recovery scheme, the new provisions on NHS dentistry, the reform of the welfare food scheme, and the independent inspectorates.

Andrew Lansley: The Minister is representing the choice before the House as being whether the whole Bill proceeds or not, but the choice before the House now is whether part 1 proceeds or not. We are debating whether we proceed with foundation trusts in their present form. The rest of the Bill, as the Minister knows, is in a form that we are happy to see proceed.

John Hutton: I would simply say two things to the hon. Gentleman. The House has already decided to proceed with part 1. We have had that debate on five separate occasions and on each of those occasions the House has approved it. The other thing I would say to the hon. Gentleman and all his right hon. and hon. Friends, is that the Bill as a whole stands before the House tonight. Of course it is true that these amendments are about part 1, but the Bill as a whole is one piece of legislation, and I have made it very clear to the hon. Gentleman and the House that the whole Bill stands before us tonight and we have to make a decision on that Bill. [Interruption.] It does.

Alex Salmond: rose—

John Hutton: No, I am not giving way.
	I am also moving one further consequential amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan must sit down if it is quite clear that the Minister is not taking his intervention.

John Hutton: I am also moving one further consequential amendment this evening. It responds to the concerns of both peers and Members of the House about the representation of staff governors on the boards of NHS foundation trusts. At present, the schedule provides for at least one staff representative on the board of governors. My amendment—the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—will increase that to a minimum of three. This emphasises our commitment to promoting the effective participation of elected staff representatives in the work of NHS foundation trusts and also demonstrates, I believe, the willingness of Labour Members to try to get a resolution to the matters before us tonight.
	The further amendment I am proposing to clause 1 and schedule 1 deals with the issue of commencement and when the clause should take effect. I consider that we in the House should continue to disagree with the Lords over their amendments. We have made our position clear. We should stand firm in insisting now that this is the will of the House, which must and will in fact prevail.

Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you are aware, Standing Order No. 97 allows the Speaker to certify Bills that make provision only for Scotland as such, so as to put them to the Scottish Grand Committee. If the Bill was considered to be only an English matter, could it not also be so certified; and if so, why have 43 Labour Members of Parliament for Scotland voted to impose it on England? If the Bill, as I believe, has serious consequences for the health service in Scotland, why have 43 Scottish Members of Parliament from the Labour party voted to impose a Bill that will undermine the health service in Scotland?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The short answer is that there is no such provision in the Standing Orders.

Tim Yeo: I had hoped that, with eight hours for reflection, the Government might have come to their senses by now. The substitution of the Minister of State for the Secretary of State may reveal a lack of confidence in the Secretary of State's ability to put the case for the Government, and given the collapse in the Government's majority this afternoon that lack of confidence may easily be understood. The Minister of State said that the Government had taken this proposal through the House five times. I remind him that on each occasion the majority has been less than it was when it came before the House before.
	By contrast, the majority with which this proposal was rejected in the other place an hour or so ago was substantially larger than the majority by which it was rejected yesterday. Those results make it clear to everyone, except perhaps members of the Government, that though they may have technically won the vote in the House—even though with the assistance of Scottish Members of Parliament to whom these provisions will not apply, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has just pointed out—they have without doubt comprehensively lost the argument.
	Let me remind the House that the proposals have now been rejected by a majority of English Members of the House of Commons on two separate occasions. The proposals now command the support of considerably less than half the Members of the House, and these measures will harm, not help, the national health service and the patients whom it serves. Not surprisingly, they are opposed by a remarkable range of professionals, trade unions and other bodies. As many hon. Members pointed out this afternoon, they will create for the first time in half a century a two-tier NHS in England.
	The privileges and advantages that the Government will bestow on just a fraction of NHS hospitals will not be extended for several years to the majority of hospitals that our constituents use around the country. Indeed, if the review that the Secretary of State announced in debate this afternoon is to mean anything genuine, there is now a question mark perhaps not just over the timetable for extending foundation trust status to non-foundation trust hospitals, but possibly over the question of whether other hospitals will receive foundation trust status at all.
	The Secretary of State did not explain what he would do if the review that he announced finds that foundation trusts are not working properly. I doubt whether it is worth asking him to explain this now, because his knowledge of the Bill this afternoon appeared to be somewhat sketchy, but we must recognise that there is now a real chance that foundation trusts will not work well because of the serious flaws in the Government's proposals. On top of the way that they are now creating a two-tier NHS, the nature of the foundation trusts that the Bill will establish is so far from the concept originally proposed by the former Secretary of State—the concept originally endorsed by the Prime Minister and then undermined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that it will not achieve the benefits that the Government claimed for it.
	Foundation trusts will not enjoy the freedoms that true independence brings. They will be subject to the same star ratings that have plagued the lives of doctors, nurses and managers for the past few years. They will be strictly regulated by a body that is itself controlled tightly by the Secretary of State. They will be forced to operate a management and governance structure that is irrelevant to the needs of patients, ill defined and confused in its concept, and expensive and cumbersome to operate. The only gains that foundation trusts will make are those that they will achieve at the expense of other hospitals.
	What makes these damaging proposals all the more offensive to English MPs is that it applies to their constituents, but not to the constituents of those Scottish Members on whom the Government relied for their majority.

Alex Salmond: Is the shadow Secretary of State aware not only that 43 Scottish Labour Members voted to impose foundation hospitals on England, but that these proposals were vigorously opposed by the Labour party in Scotland, including in the constituency of the Secretary of State for Health?

Tim Yeo: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out, and it puts into context the use of the word "hypocrisy" by members of the Government earlier today in relation to this issue.
	The Secretary of State knows that the Opposition would like to give our support to measures that give greater freedom to doctors, nurses and managers in the NHS. He knows that, unlike him and most Ministers, I have direct personal experience of chairing an independent charitable trust that successfully transformed an ailing NHS hospital, using the freedom that release from ministerial control bestows.
	I therefore now make the Secretary of State an offer on behalf of the Opposition—I do so in good faith in an attempt to rescue the Bill. If the Government make concessions on two important aspects of the Bill, the Opposition are prepared to end their resistance to the Bill's passage through the House. First, the Government must abandon the costly, muddled, expensive and cumbersome governance procedures set out in schedule 1, and replace them with a simple management structure that does not involve elections by badly defined and probably unrepresentative constituencies. Secondly, they must change the rules relating to borrowing, so that borrowing by foundation trusts will not prejudice the ability of non-foundation trusts to access funds that they need to maintain and improve their services. That change will have to be accompanied by explicit Treasury consent.
	Those changes would go a long way towards avoiding the creation of a two-tier national health service, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) is available to discuss the details of our proposal through the night and tomorrow morning if necessary. I appreciate that time is not on the Government's side. That is a problem that is entirely of their making. The two aspects of the Bill that we believe should be changed are ones that have caused concern in both Houses during the Bill's passage through Parliament, and have been widely criticised outside Parliament. It would have been helpful if the Government had listened to the concerns expressed by a great many people at an earlier stage, and acknowledged the strength of opposition to their proposals not only on the Opposition Benches, but in the Labour party. Nevertheless, it need not be too late to save this Bill.
	Even if agreement cannot be reached on those two points, I confirm that the Opposition will be happy to let the rest of the Bill, apart from part 1, go straight into law. Our aim throughout these proceedings has been to avoid damage to the national health service. We believe that our proposal responds to the concerns of a great many people who are worried about what this Bill will do to the NHS. If by any chance the time scale proves too tight to reach an agreed settlement before the House prorogues, we will of course be happy to set out the basis on which a new Bill could be introduced early in the new Session and given the swiftest possible passage through Parliament. In the absence of progress along the lines that I have indicated, however, we will continue to fight against this motion.

Frank Field: My right hon. Friend was clearly right when he said earlier—although I would put it in slightly different language—that the two Houses must at some stage come to some agreement on this Bill. I want to make a plea to my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), as to why we should use this opportunity to think again about our stance.
	One of the most valuable things that the labour movement has given to this country is the NHS. The NHS now is a prisoner of our success. In every election that I have fought, I, and those who fought elections before me, knew that the NHS was behind our lines. It was untouchable. It had a Teflon defence. The defence was that although we loved this institution, it did not have the money to deliver the job. Therefore, whatever problems, difficulties or failures it presented to our constituents, we all knew that it could not do better. The great success of this Government is that the NHS now has more funds and a larger increase in funds than any other Government have ever provided or asked taxpayers to provide. However, by doing that, we have stripped away that great defence—the defence that the NHS, this great nationalised industry, cannot deliver in the way that our constituents want it to deliver.
	With the NHS moving from behind our lines into political no man's land where it faces attack from quarters who could never before attack it, we have to judge whether this small part of the Bill, which is causing such dispute within and between parties, will answer one key question that our constituents will ask. When we go to the polls, will they have seen that the money that they have willed from their wage packets and purses has been used as effectively as possible to increase the performance of this body that we have moved from behind our lines into political no man's land?
	Let us consider the Bill, and I ask my hon. Friends to examine one aspect of setting up foundation hospitals. Before the spring of next year, the larger hospitals must from nothing create an electorate. Some of them will be searching for up to 3 million voters. We can imagine the legal disputes from some of those factions in our constituencies if they are not successful should we have a vote. We know what would happen. We all know from this institution to which we are so committed—

Jim Knight: Is my right hon. Friend against democracy?

Frank Field: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I will continue as this is the first opportunity that I have had to contribute.
	What will happen when we go to our local hospital to use it and look at the health side of its performance? Yesterday, I took my mother to St. Thomas's hospital. She had been some months before to see what was wrong with her heart. There was no follow-up appointment, so I phoned. Something had gone wrong, so we were given an appointment quickly—wonderfully. We then turned up and her file was there, but the results of the tests that she had had were not there. We had to wait while there was a search for those papers. The X-ray could not be found, so it had to be taken again. That hospital is under enormous pressure and it is trying to deliver a better service to our constituents and to our families, yet on the key issue of patient records this wonderful institution was losing things. If we pass the Bill tonight, we will also say to that hospital that it will have to set up an electorate. As well as trying to find and link papers to the patients who have come in for treatment, it will have to find up to 3 million people to take part in an election.
	Of course, at some stage there will be a deal with the House of Lords. We are not quite sure what that deal will be. It will partly depend on our vote. However, I make a plea to Labour Members to maintain their opposition to the clause on foundation hospitals. I do not do that as someone who has opposed reform of the health service. Perhaps my Front Benchers found me annoying in suggesting ways in which we could be quicker in transforming this old nationalised industry into one that is responsive to consumer demand.
	I pressed the Government to allow patients to go abroad, and 16 months later the Government, to some extent, conceded that. I asked them to take one target that everyone could see so that there would be no question of spin—that we would abolish day waiting lists before the next election and that we would bring in teams from abroad to achieve that objective. In doing so, we would break the Scargillite tendency among the consultants who have a vested interested in making sure that there are large waiting lists so that they can get private practice. There has been some movement, but precious little.
	I speak and make my plea not as someone who has made the traditional defence of the NHS that we heard earlier. I believe passionately that, if it is to have a future, it is the Labour party's job to transform it from this old nationalised industry—the only nationalised industry for which the voters had any affection—to one that serves them in this new century.

Anne Picking: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way because many of his remarks seem to be directed at me. I was a nurse—a front-line public service worker—for all my days until I came to the House, so I know what it is like to do that job. Our debate is not about foundation hospitals any more because we have debated that issue and voted on it—my personal position did not win the vote. However, we are now considering the democracy of this House, which must be sacrosanct.

Frank Field: I apologise if I was looking at my hon. Friend while making my remarks, but if she cares to look at the circle of hon. Members sitting around her, she will understand that it was more preferable to look at her than her colleagues. I was not sending her a personal message in any way because I accept her honourable position. At the end of the debate, I hope that we will all know that we voted in the way in which we believed to be right.
	I disagree with my hon. Friend on one point—if I may look at her again. Although it is quite proper for her to say that we have made our point and that we should insist that the Commons prevail, there is quite a long time until the opening of the new Session next Wednesday, so a lot of haggling could go on. There must be agreement at some stage and that must be satisfactory to the Government. My only plea is that when we consider how we vote, we do not do that on the traditional grounds of defending the old national health service, which is passing from our midst.
	I make a plea as an ardent advocate of modernisation. We will succeed only by modernising, but I cannot for the life of me understand how it can be in our long-term interest to push more hospitals down the route of having to encourage more of our constituents to vote for various boards, especially given that some people who are sitting not far from me find it difficult to explain how they will operate.
	I end my speech as I began it. We have moved the NHS from behind the safety of our lines into political no man's land. The electorate's test will be how we use their money to improve the service that the NHS provides. Will foundation hospitals have any influence on that before the next election? It will take a great deal of the time of some of the cleverest people in the NHS to get the scheme off the ground, but I wonder whether it will make any difference to a single one of our constituents. On that basis, I hope that at least some of us will insist on opposing this part of the Bill.

Paul Burstow: I rise to respond to the Minister, because he tried to say that we had a straight choice—take the Bill or leave it. That is not the choice before us, because we are debating part 1, which sprang up fully formed without any consultation. It did not appear in the Labour party's manifesto at the general election and did not form part of the NHS plan.
	The Government must understand—they have not addressed this worry at any stage during the Bill's passage—that the Bill will not ensure equity, or safeguard universality, in the national health service. It will not require decisions about foundation trust status to take account of their impact on the rest of the NHS on such hospitals' patches. It will not prevent a foundation trust from adopting a predatory approach towards non-foundation trusts in its neighbourhood, and especially towards services and staff.
	We are talking about establishing an NHS in which competition, not co-operation, determines the form that it takes and how it progresses. The Bill confers a privileged status on foundation trusts in respect of borrowing and capital. The early wave of foundation trusts will have an easier ride when gaining access to capital at the expense of the rest of the NHS. The Bill still does not clearly deal with the cap on private activities within the NHS. The word used is "may", not "must". I urge Labour Members to read clause 15(1), which makes it plain that that is the case.
	The House of Lords has considered foundation trusts a number of times. It has given us a chance to reflect on the issues again. I encourage hon. Members to take this opportunity to reject foundation trusts in the Lobby.

Desmond Turner: I hope that Labour Members can divorce the debate from a confrontation either between Labour and the Opposition or between this House and the other place. The central issue is, if we insist on having foundation hospitals, will that advance the great Labour project, to which I fully subscribe, to improve public services and, in particular, to make the health service what we want it to be? In that spirit, I ask my Front-Bench colleagues to think again and my hon. Friends to think carefully about how they vote. I realise that the Government will probably carry the vote, but they should bear that request in mind.
	My Front-Bench colleagues have regrettably failed to answer the serious criticisms levelled against foundation hospitals. The rest of the Bill does not depend on them and is acceptable to the House. I ask my Government to think again. I also ask my hon. Friends, who share my reservations, to stand by their concerns. Otherwise, I fear that we will be in danger of passing legislation that future Labour Governments—I am not worried about Governments of other parties—may wish we had not enacted.

Quentin Davies: We have got familiar over the past five or six years with the fact that we have an arrogant Government. They always have to have their way. If they do not, they get petulant and bad-tempered. I am afraid to say that the Minister behaved like that. In that petulance and bad temper, they forget, or show less than regard for, our constitution. He said that the other place had no right to turn down the Bill, but of course it has a right to do that. Our constitution and the Parliament Act are clear on that point. The other place is entitled to use its constitutional powers. If the Government wish to do so, they can use the Parliament Act in the next Session, but they have no grounds for such petulant resentment at the other place for simply fulfilling its constitutional mandate.
	The substantive question is whether the House of Lords is right to take the view that it has. No one who has taken part in the debates on this matter today can be in any doubt that on this issue we need the other place to take a different view. At best this is an extremely muddled Bill, and at worst it is thoroughly dishonest. Its whole premise—as the Government introduced it—is that foundation hospitals can enjoy some real benefits by achieving that status, but other hospitals will not suffer any disadvantages. That is an implausible proposition to begin with, but it has been clearly exposed today as bogus. We have learned that from the financial point of view it will be a zero-sum game. If the foundation hospitals are able to raise more capital, it will be pound for pound at the expense of the capital available to hospitals that do not have that status.

John Hutton: indicated dissent.

Quentin Davies: The Minister of State shakes his head, but I doubt whether he will be brave enough to rise to contradict me. What I contend has been established beyond peradventure.
	Another peculiar feature of the Government's propaganda on this subject is the claim that foundation hospitals somehow represent the recapture of hospitals for local democracy. In practice, all the powers will be drawn back into the bureaucracy by the regulator. Indeed, as the bureaucracy will determine which hospitals are allowed to become foundation hospitals, the Bill will increase centralisation, which is the exact opposite of the propaganda line. The Government have been disingenuous about the Bill.
	The most dramatic revelation this afternoon was when the Secretary of State was forced to make concessions to his Back Benchers. He made contradictory and irreconcilable concessions to various groups in his own party. He told one group that if it did not like foundation hospitals, it should not worry because the Government would have a review after 12 months and possibly go back on the whole idea. However, he told another group—one that did not like the exclusivity of the concept—that all hospitals could become foundation trusts within four years. The Secretary of State does not seek to contradict me, and it is obvious that those two assurances contradict each other.
	When incompatible, and I am tempted to say dishonest, promises are made on a Bill, it is important that the other place should take the opportunity to call a halt and say that we should not go ahead with it. Not only does the House of Lords have the constitutional right to take the view that it has, but it is clear from the way in which the muddle that the Government are in has been exposed by the debates today that the Lords are right. Thank heavens they have used their powers to ensure that the Government's contradictions and the Bill's shortcomings are laid bare. The House of Lords has done a great service to the country this evening. I hope that the other place will continue to stand firm and courageous, and send the Bill back again. If the Government have the courage of their convictions, they can use the Parliament Act in the next Session.

Kate Hoey: I shall be brief. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Well, I may go on longer, if that is the attitude. The House of Lords has done what it has the right to do.
	If we do not like what the House of Lords is doing, we have to change the constitution, because the current constitution gives the Lords that right. To be frank, I am pleased that, apart from the provisions relating to foundation hospitals, the Lords have made several other amendments that improve the Bill.
	In my view, the Bill has no credibility. It has no real support within the national health service or in the country. I cannot understand why Ministers in my Government are not listening to what people throughout the country are saying. Their handling of this issue has been extremely short-sighted. Already in my area, thousands of pounds have been spent on a consultation exercise, not on the principle, but on the detail. That that has happened—that the money has been spent before the proposal has even been passed by Parliament—is quite disgraceful. The money being spent now and that will be spent in future could have been added to the money that the Government are already putting into our national health service.
	We have an excellent trust in Guy's and St Thomas's. Members of the board live in the community and forums bring in people from all parts of the community. At every consultation meeting that I have attended, I have not seen a single hand rise in favour of foundation trusts. We are doing something that has no support in the country, and the Government will rue the day if the Bill goes through tonight.

George Young: The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) have just had the courage to articulate reservations which we all know are widely shared by Labour Members. I hope that, even at this late stage in our debate, Labour Members will reflect on what those two Members have said. The first time we voted on this issue, the Government majority was 35; the second time, it was 17. At that rate of progress, the vote later on could be quite tight.
	I say to the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), who opened the debate, the issue is not whether the Bill reaches the statute book, as he implied; the issue before the House now is whether the Bill reaches the statute book with part 1, or without it. All the other beneficial measures in the Bill will go on to the statute book if, in a few minutes' time, the House agrees with the Lords in their amendments.
	Two issues that have run through the debate this afternoon and evening remain wholly unanswered by the Government. The first relates to funding. If a foundation trust successfully raises money privately and uses those resources to construct a building that would not otherwise have been built, the consequence will be that another hospital does not get a building that was in the Government's plans, because the overall public expenditure ceiling cannot be breached. Every single addition, every single success scored by a foundation hospital, will be compensated for by a failure by another hospital. It is no good the Secretary of State pointing at his head. He and the Minister of State have had debates this afternoon and this evening to answer that point, and neither has done so.

Hon. Members: Answer him!

John Reid: I shall speak slowly, because even after three explanations, hon. Members obviously do not get it. It is quite easy for those who can do arithmetic. The envelope for capital expenditure is sufficiently big to contain all of the demands because, unlike the Conservatives, Labour is building up investment, not cutting it.

George Young: With the greatest respect for the Secretary of State, I have to say that that does not answer the point that has been made time and again, for the following reason: he will never be able to get from the Treasury the totality of the money that he would like to spend on the NHS. If foundation hospitals were to be allowed to spend in addition to the provision made, there would be some advantage in their creation, but I repeat what I said a few moments ago: every success by a foundation trust will be matched by another building for a hospital that is not a foundation trust having to be dropped from the plans. That is the charge that the right hon. Gentleman has failed to answer throughout the debate.
	The second point was touched upon by the hon. Member for Vauxhall. The Secretary of State wants to make services more responsive to the needs of patients. We agree with that. However, he has democratised the wrong body. It is not hospitals that determine the shape or the volume of services that are consumed. It is the primary care trust that commissions the services from the hospitals. If the right hon. Gentleman wanted to make the NHS more responsive to local needs, he should have applied his corporate government measures to the primary care trust, not to the hospitals.
	Some Labour Members are cautious about voting with the Opposition. I have voted with Oppositions in previous Parliaments when there were Conservative Governments. If a Government Member thinks that it is right to vote with the Opposition because he or she believes that the amendment under question is right, he or she should do so. It seems to be perverse to rebel if it is thought that there is no chance of success, but to pull back on the one occasion when there is a real prospect of making a change. I understand that Labour Members have cover from their party conference if they want to vote in favour of the Lords amendment.
	If Labour Members want a satisfactory resolution—if they want all the measures in the Bill to reach the statute book but not part 1—they should vote with the Opposition. They know in their hearts that that is the right thing to do, and they should not listen to the bullying from the Secretary of State.

Tom Levitt: I intervened earlier to point out how a Liberal Democrat Member was supporting foundation hospitals in her locality but voting against them tonight. I do not want to criticise her or to make political capital out of that, but she was right to support foundation status for the Stepping Hill hospital in Stockport. It is an up to three star hospital that requires two new operating theatres in short shrift. It is a hospital that needs to replace two more of its existing theatres within three or four years. Should that hospital have the right to decide when, where and how it replaces its operating theatres, or should it be a small fish in the big pool of Greater Manchester, never rising to the top and never being able to secure the operating theatres that it requires?
	On behalf of the people of Stockport and High Peak, I want Stepping Hill hospital to be able to make its decisions about the services that it provides. The decisions on operating theatres would not be taking resources away from other hospitals and other trusts.

George Stevenson: Has my hon. Friend given any consideration to the effect that his argument would have on North Staffordshire hospital trust and not the foundation hospital?

Tom Levitt: I grew up in north Staffordshire and I had treatment in north Staffordshire hospitals, and I sympathise with my hon. Friend. I am explaining why no other hospitals will suffer because of my local hospital getting extra facilities.
	The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) explained how he did not think that the model worked. He is living in the past. As long as there is more money going into the health service, conditions will not worsen in non-foundation hospitals. He is right in his analysis if there are cuts in the health service, as there were under Tory Governments in the past and as there would be under future Tory Governments. That is when his model would work.
	I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) that there are plenty of Vauxhall voters on the Government Benches. We have been listening to her extremely carefully.

Tony Baldry: In their own interests, Labour Members should reflect on whether today will be their NHS poll tax. I shall explain why.
	In Oxfordshire, we have the Oxford Radcliffe NHS trust, which is a low starred trust. That is through no fault of the staff, the doctors or members of trade unions who work there. There are many structural reasons involving the bringing together of hospital sites and the Oxford teaching hospital. However, the hospital produces some very good medicine. It is a no-star trust, so it has little chance of becoming a foundation hospital. That is exactly the sort of hospital that should receive help from the Government, yet it will not.
	The Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre up the road has the highest star rating and will be in the first wave of hospitals to get foundation status. Unto them that have will be given, and from those that have not will be taken away even that which they have. Nurses working at the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre in one part of Oxford will be paid more than nurses working in the Oxford Radcliffe Hospitals NHS trust. Where is the equity in that? Where is the national health service in all that? The measure is a totally unfair way of proceeding. If Labour Members believe that that—

Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tony Baldry: No, I am short of time.
	If Labour Members believe that that is the way forward for the national health service, they will seriously regret that they put part 1 into legislation, if that is what they choose to do.

Richard Taylor: As somebody who has worked in the NHS for rather a long time, I am dedicated to it as a service for the patient. I agree that it is vital to decentralise control, but the proposal is the wrong way of decentralising services. It is wrong because it drives a wedge between primary and secondary care, and between hospitals, at exactly the time when the Government are looking for partnerships, collaboration and networking. It is ill thought out because of the lack of patient forums, at exactly the time when the Government are trying to improve patient and public involvement in health. I do not believe that the members of boards of governors of foundation trusts will be entirely independent of their executives.
	There is an alternative way. One has only to go back 17 of the 18 re-organisations that we have had in the past 20 years, to local district health authorities, which had locally elected members in the form of councillors, representatives of local bodies, a locally elected consultant and a locally elected GP, to see that they worked. With the resource management initiative that was abolished almost as soon as it was drawn up, they would have produced an efficient service. Even now, the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection would have been able to prove that those organisations were living within their means or were underfunded.
	I would like us to forget about foundation trusts and consider other reforms while there is still time. A vote against the Government is not a vote against decentralisation; it is a vote against the wrong sort of decentralisation.

Kenneth Clarke: I hope I have a chance to remind the Secretary of State, who appeared to believe the reply that he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) about the effect of the financing of foundation hospitals on other hospitals, that that was not the view of his predecessor. When foundation hospitals were proposed, it was not the intention to cap capital spending. Borrowing was to be enlarged. It was the Treasury that insisted on a cap. Why does the Secretary of State think the Treasury insisted on putting a cap on capital spending, if there is now unlimited funding, no choices to be made, and all can have the investment that they wish? It was the Treasury that insisted that capital investment in foundation hospitals would be at the expense of other hospitals. He cannot seriously deny with a straight face, even at this hour of night, that he has lost that argument and several others as well with those in another place.

John Reid: I have a considerable respect for the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but there is one significant difference between the position that he faced and the position that we face now, which is that there is an increase in investment—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may not like it, but the difference between the Tory Government cutting the capital investment envelope and a 7.4 per cent. real-terms increase for five years means that every feasible application for capital requirements, even counted against the envelope, can be met under the Labour Government, while they were consistently refused under the cuts of the Tory Government. That is the point.

Kenneth Clarke: Then will the Secretary of State explain why the Treasury insisted on a cap?

John Reid: The Treasury insisted not on a cap, but that any borrowing made by the foundation trust counted towards the general envelope. [Interruption.] That is not—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must listen to the Secretary of State.

John Reid: That is not an individual cap for a hospital; it is—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that these are serious matters, and they must be dealt with accordingly. May I also remind the Secretary of State that he is intervening?

John Reid: My intervention would be briefer if Opposition Members were prepared to accept the answer for which they have constantly asked. There is not an individual cap on hospitals, foundation trusts or otherwise—
	It being one hour after the commencement of consideration, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].

Question put, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in the said amendment:—
	The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 249.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 1 disagreed to.
	Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 161 disagreed to.
	Government amendments (a) to (bb) to the words restored agreed to.

MMR VACCINE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Joan Ryan.]

Norman Baker: Nineteen hours ago I was attending a breakfast meeting in Newhaven to discuss infrastructure works in my constituency. It seems a long time ago.
	The measles, mumps and rubella vaccine is a difficult subject, but it is extremely important for my constituents. I do not profess to be an expert on the matter but I shall do my best to represent constituents who have presented me with a compelling set of circumstances that I feel obliged to raise on their behalf in this debate. I do so with the full support and encouragement of my constituent, Isabella Thomas, on behalf of her children Michael and Terry. I hope that the Under-Secretary has received from my office information giving the history of events.
	My constituent has four sons. The two older boys both caught measles during the first years of their life when the single vaccine against measles was not offered. They are both fine. However, the two younger boys both received the MMR vaccine and suffered severe reactions that dramatically changed their lives. Michael suffered mild asthma and breathing problems after his third diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis and polio vaccinations, but was developing normally before he was given the MMR vaccine at 14 months.
	Within hours of the MMR vaccination, Michael developed high-pitched screaming and a high fever. According to my constituent, he was like a wild animal; he screamed when anyone touched him and cried day and night. He has been diagnosed with regressive autism and has an obsessive-compulsive disorder. He suffers from auditory hallucinations, increased clumsiness, chronic bowel disease, temperature control problems, severe headaches, loss of memory, breathing problems and rashes. Last year, he was unable to attend school very much due to his health problems. At present, he does not go to school, as no school can meet his needs. It is clear from a psychological report compiled this year that his condition is deteriorating. Medical test results have found the measles virus, consistent with the vaccine strain, in damaged tissue in Michael's bowel and in his blood.
	Michael's younger brother Terry also suffered minor reactions to his DTP and polio vaccinations. He was prone to febrile convulsions, but otherwise he developed normally. He walked at 10 months and his development milestones were satisfactory according to his health visitor at the time.
	As Michael had had such a severe reaction to the MMR vaccine, his mother was worried about giving Terry the same injection. However, under intense pressure, and after medical advice, she duly had Terry vaccinated. During the night after the vaccination, Terry suffered a fit and within a week he developed excessive temperature swings and loss of skills. Before the vaccination, he was potty trained, but he regressed the very next day. Within two weeks he began to suffer from constipation and chronic diarrhoea. Within a month he appeared clumsy and walked into doors. He stopped talking and would become completely silent. He no longer indulged in pretend play. He now suffers from fits, jaundice when ill, chronic bowel disease, very high fevers, rashes, regressive autism and excessive thirst. His medical test results show that he, too, has the measles virus, consistent with the vaccine strain, in the damaged tissue in his bowel.
	As I said earlier, I do not pretend to be an expert in these matters. I merely consider the evidence as a layperson. The Minister may be able to give me some explanations but none has yet been forthcoming from the medical profession. Given the circumstantial evidence, the conclusions that my constituent has reached are hardly surprising.
	My only previous involvement in the topic of vaccines was when I raised questions about bovine material in vaccines during an Adjournment debate in this place on 28 March 2000. I was concerned that the use of such material, which could be a transmitter of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, was allowed in vaccines years after it should have been withdrawn. Subsequently, the Government admitted that in a statement. In fact, although it was thought that the risk of the disease was greater from injections than from food, action was taken on food as a transmission route but not on vaccines. Sometimes, when there are questions about the safety of vaccines, Governments, of whatever party, have the wholly laudable intention of not damaging confidence in vaccines generally, which are obviously useful for society, and are reluctant to admit that there may be a problem under certain conditions. That idea came to my mind as a result of that debate on bovine vaccines three years ago.
	I need to know how these conditions developed in Michael and Terry. How can they be explained if they are not an adverse reaction to MMR? Should some other medical explanation be forthcoming? The injections were two years apart and the adverse reactions began immediately after the vaccine was administered, so the circumstantial evidence is quite strong.
	My constituent, in a letter to me, says:
	"I wanted to keep my children safe from disease and I trusted the system. I thought the system would be structured to protect my children as individuals. I have been naive. The system is structured to protect itself."
	That is her view on the matter, and I hope that the Minister's response will go some way to reassure her and make her feel better about the situation in which she and her children now find themselves.
	I know that the Minister is not responsible for the legal system and therefore cannot say much about that, but my constituent is in a difficult situation. Her anxiety and stress has been exacerbated by a change to the legal aid funding of the class action. Her sons were awarded legal aid to pursue their case for compensation through the courts, but after several years of legal aid, on 1 October, just six months before the test cases were due to go before the High Court in April 2004, legal aid was stopped. Unless a judicial review requires the Legal Services Commission to revise its decision, it will be extremely difficult for her and many other parents to fight the case that they have progressed so far. Purely from the point of view of the use of public funds, it seems rather excessive and bizarre to have expended so much public money up to a particular point, only to pull the rug. There is a question mark in my mind about that.
	My constituent believes, rightly or wrongly, that the reactions that have been caused in her children and which have led to these, it seems, permanent conditions are a result of MMR. She holds that view very strongly and communicates it to those in the health service. She feels that because she holds that view, her children are effectively being denied effective treatment to deal with their conditions until such time as she is prepared to deny that MMR is the cause. That may be a misconception on her part, but that is what she believes.
	Whatever else comes out of this, I hope very much that we can find a way of providing effective treatment to help those children, because their mother sincerely believes they have been effectively abandoned in many ways by the health service as a consequence of the situation that has arisen and as a consequence of the huge controversy surrounding MMR in the medical profession and society at large. No doctor, it seems, wants to be associated with cases that may be MMR-related—or at least are in the mother's view—in case somehow there is a problem from their perspective, so the children are effectively denied medical treatment that would help them.
	I want to leave plenty of time for the Minister to reply so I will not speak for much longer. My constituent says that she thinks that the Department of Health has failed in its duty of care for her children. In a letter to me, she raises a number of points about the pre-introductory MMR trials, which she believes
	"were inadequate in that they failed to follow up adverse reactions for more than just a few weeks."
	She says that
	"it took the Department four years to identify and withdraw two of the three original MMR brands that had been introduced into the UK vaccination programme in 1988".
	I do not know whether that is true. She refers to the two brands Pluserix and Immravax, which she says were withdrawn in September 1992 because they contained a mumps strain that was apparently suspected of causing mumps meningitis. If the Minister has advice on that, I should be interested to hear it.
	Is it possible, I ask the Minister, that there was an earlier strain of MMR that was, in her view, less satisfactory than the ones being used now? Would that be an explanation of the situation in which my constituent finds herself? In the opinion of the Department of Health, is there a difference in the safety of different strains or is it the Minister's view that they are all equally safe, as the Government maintain they are?
	My constituent says that the vaccine policy makers failed by providing an inefficient monitoring system for adverse events following vaccination. To justify her position on that, she quotes a sentence published in The Lancet on 4 March 1995:
	"There is an urgent need to find more reliable methods of adverse event surveillance."
	Lastly, my constituent also believes that the Government's senior vaccine officers failed to investigate the children believed to have been damaged. She says that a full list of children then affected was presented to the then Health Minister, the chief medical officer and the principal medical officer during a one-hour meeting in 1997, when the Government were asked to instigate a scientific investigation of the children believed to have been damaged. Such an investigation would have been useful. Is the Minister aware of that meeting? If so, is she able to tell me what progress there has been as a result of the meeting?
	I freely admit that, as the Minister will understand, I am not an expert in health matters—my expertise, such as it is, is in environmental matters—but my constituent is extremely distressed. She has two children whose lives have been changed for the worse—it seems, permanently. There is at least a casual link in her mind between the conditions that the children now have and the administration of the MMR vaccine.
	The Minister will know just how difficult it is for parents to decide whether vaccinating their children is the right thing to do. There are risks in vaccinating and in not vaccinating. It is a very difficult decision, and my constituent feels that the medical profession encouraged her to take the wrong decision for her children. I hope that the Minister can deal constructively and sympathetically with my constituent's case and give some reassurances that I can take back to her.

Melanie Johnson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on securing this debate on his constituent and the MMR issue. Many other hon. Members and I care greatly about the health and safety of children. Many of us, as parents, well understand the difficulties of deciding whether to have children vaccinated and, indeed, the concerns that any parent must have about the health of their child.
	Of course, autism can have a devastating impact on children and their families, and it is only natural that the parents of autistic children want to find out what has caused their child's condition, but it has proved difficult to find such a cause. The Department of Health has already asked the Medical Research Council to consider the evidence. The MRC produced a clear and authoritative picture of what scientific research has revealed about the occurrence and causes of autistic spectrum disorders. The MRC report clearly reflected the current state of knowledge. Like other authorities, the MRC identified a strong genetic component in the causation of autism.
	The Government have demonstrated their commitment to finding out more about the causes of autism by allocating a further £2.5 million to the MRC to help it to take forward the recommendations of the report. However, we know that some parents genuinely believe that their children's lives have been damaged by the MMR vaccine. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman's constituency is one of them. Of course, they want to know what has affected their child. However, I have to reassure the hon. Gentleman and others that all the scientific research from around the world comes to the same conclusion: there is no credible evidence linking MMR and autism. That may not be a comforting conclusion for parents who believe that their child's autism was somehow triggered by MMR, but I cannot ignore the evidence and the scientific advice that we have received from around the world.
	Perhaps I can put the introduction of the MMR vaccine in the UK into context. The MMR vaccine underwent a thorough licensing programme and a review was carried out in 2001, which was prompted by concerns raised by Andrew Wakefield in a publication in 2000. The Committee on Safety of Medicines concluded that standard procedures were followed and that MMR vaccines were licensed on the basis of satisfactory standards of safety, quality and efficacy.
	Pre-licensing trials are normally not large enough to detect rare adverse reactions. That is why procedures are in place to monitor vaccine safety after licensing. Therefore the retrospective call for the original MMR clinical trials carried out in the 1970s and 1980s to be able to detect an increase in autism postulated in the 1990s is not sensible or justified. None of the studies carried out subsequently, however, has provided any support whatsoever for the claims that either bowel disease or autism is associated with the MMR vaccine.
	The hon. Gentleman touched on the withdrawal of the MMR vaccines containing the urabe strain of mumps vaccine in 1992. The identification of this issue four years after the introduction of the vaccines is not proof that the clinical trials were inadequate. When the Department of Health became aware of the existence of a potential safety issue with that vaccine strain, it immediately asked the Public Health Laboratory Service to instigate detailed monitoring of possible vaccine-associated cases of aseptic meningitis. Initially, some 28 vaccine-associated cases were identified, which were all in recipients of MMR vaccines containing the urabe mumps strain. This indicated a risk of one case of aseptic meningitis in 11,000 vaccinees. As soon as those data were available in 1992, an alternative vaccine became available which did not have that level of risk and was equally effective. The vaccines were replaced in September 1992. Very rare adverse reactions sometimes cannot be identified until a vaccine is used in a wider population, which is precisely why we have the monitoring arrangements that we do.
	To turn to the monitoring arrangements—the yellow card scheme—I cannot go into all the detail in the time available to me, but as soon as the strain was identified, vaccines were withdrawn. That demonstrates clearly that if we identify a problem, we are able to act and respond—[Interruption.] I cannot hear what the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) is saying from a sedentary position. If I could, I might be able to respond.
	A number of studies cannot find any difference between the rate of autism in children receiving MMR and in those who do not receive it. Other studies have found no sudden increase in autism associated with the introduction of the MMR vaccine in the UK in 1988, no difference in the age of diagnosis between MMR-immunised and un-immunised children, no difference in the MMR immunisation rates between those children with autism and the general population, and no link between the timing of MMR and the onset of autism.

Norman Baker: One thing that I did not mention was some staggering figures on the incidence of autism in the United States, which tend to suggest, taking all the states on average, that there has been an overall increase of 870 per cent. between 1992 and 2002—from 12,000 cases to 118,000 cases in just 10 years. Has the Department of Health made any studies as to what the reasons might be for that gigantic increase in the US? Has that been investigated at all?

Melanie Johnson: Obviously, I am not responsible for health care in the US, although I appreciate that its experience may be relevant to ours. In the UK, vaccinations are not compulsory but voluntary. I do not have an analysis with me this evening of the US figures that the hon. Gentleman has quoted, and I cannot therefore comment on their validity or on what the scientific community has said about them.
	It is not just this country that has come to this conclusion about MMR—a huge number of countries around the world that use the vaccines have done so, as has the World Health Organisation, which states that MMR
	"has an outstanding safety record".
	The hon. Gentleman will have heard the recent views from Dr. Murch, who was one of the authors of the original papers that triggered the MMR debate. His words speak for themselves:
	"No other vaccine has ever been studied in such depth and the evidence for its overall safety is comprehensive . . . There is now unequivocal evidence that MMR is not a risk factor for autism."
	He was one of the authors of the original report. He continues:
	"This statement is not spin or medical conspiracy, but reflects an unprecedented volume of medical study on a worldwide basis."
	I now turn to the question of measles virus in samples from autistic children, which the hon. Gentleman also raised. Some parents of children with autism have chosen to have samples of blood and tissue analysed privately. The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that, in some cases, the measles virus consistent with the vaccine strain has been found in blood and other samples taken from the child. The detection of that has become the focus of much attention over recent months.
	There is only one laboratory of which we are aware that claims to find measles virus in tissue samples from autistic children. However, the head of that laboratory in Dublin, Professor O'Leary, issued a press statement last year because he was concerned about the way in which certain newspapers had reported the results of his work. He said that the newspaper reports were
	"misleading, erroneous, and are causing unnecessary concern among parents."
	He added:
	"I and my research team have consistently advocated the use of immunisation and the use of MMR to protect the nation's children from measles, mumps and rubella."
	Much evidence has been put into court about parallel testing of blood and other samples both by Professor O'Leary and other experts advising the court. The results of those investigations need to be put into the public domain, so that everyone, including the parents involved in the court cases, can see all the evidence and not just selected parts of it. We need to be careful about accepting just part of the story.
	The hon. Gentleman might also like to know about the test results of the recent court case taken against the manufacturers of MMR. He will be aware that three test specimens were claimed to have proved positive when tested by the laboratory on behalf of the claimants, and this became the centre of attention in a number of media stories claiming that Dr. Wakefield believed this to be the strongest evidence yet linking MMR to autism. However, the hon. Gentleman will also be interested to know that the results of the analysis of the same samples carried out by other expert laboratories were that no measles virus could be detected in the samples. I am not sure how the stories were run in the newspapers, but they probably did not serve the public's best interest. Scientists and the responsible media need to look at the evidence dispassionately, both for and against a theory, and not risk the idea that they suppress results.
	On legal aid, it is important to understand the process that has led to the decision by the Legal Services Commission to withdraw funding for the MMR litigation. After all the evidence from both claimants and defendants was put into court, I understand that the Legal Services Commission took the view that there was insufficient evidence to proceed with any prospect of success for the claimants. This decision was appealed by the claimants' lawyers and it was reviewed by the funding review committee of the LSC. The committee is an independent body made up of solicitors and barristers from private practice, including a Queen's counsel with expertise in this sort of litigation. The decision to withhold further funding was supported on appeal.
	We should not forget that the LSC had already made an investment, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, of £15 million in this case. Despite this investment, medical research had not proved a link between the MMR vaccine and autistic spectrum disorders and no link had been proven by any other medical authority. I also think that it is important to note that the LSC has said that, on further consideration, it regrets embarking on funding the scientific studies that have contributed to the £15 million costs.
	It is important to ensure that this £15 million investment of legal aid does not go to waste. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that it is imperative that experts look at this evidence, as they have with all evidence on MMR over the years, to reassure themselves that no evidence of a link has been overlooked. We also have the evidence about the view of the claimants' chances in court.

Eleanor Laing: Will the Minister ensure that the money that the taxpayer has spent so far does not go to waste? It appears that the research that has so far been carried out has been to no avail, simply because it does not appear suitable to take forward the court case. Will she assure the House that taxpayers' money that has gone into the research on the possible link between MMR and autism will not be put to waste, but will be followed up so that we can finally reach a conclusion on this question?

Melanie Johnson: The hon. Lady makes a good point, and I was saying that we hope that the money will not go to waste. I understand that most, if not all, of the expenditure is incurred by claimants, so much of the expenditure is effectively their property. They have the ability to put the information into the public domain, so the main onus does not rest with the Government.
	I turn to the examination of cause regarding autism children. Detailed information about more than 200 children was obtained from families, GPs and specialists who look after children. Experts reviewed more than 100 cases of autism and bowel disease in children, but they could find no syndrome that made those children different from any others with autism. They found no evidence to implicate the vaccine or to give any cause for concern about its safety. It is worth pointing out that only one parent admitted that their child's symptoms had appeared before the MMR jab. However, there were written records from health professionals showing that there were concerns about nearly 40 per cent. of children's development before they received the MMR jab.
	Exactly the same thing was seen in a study done by Professor Taylor, because there was clear evidence that some parents had originally acknowledged that their children had problems before the MMR jab but later said that the symptoms had appeared after it. That is not to say that parents do not tell the truth. It shows how fraught the situation can be, how difficult it must be for parents to deal with it, and how difficult it can be to assess evidence before and after such a jab.
	Many scientific studies have failed to demonstrate a causal link between MMR vaccine and autism or bowel disease. The Committee on Safety of Medicines has considered the safety of MMR vaccines on numerous occasions and its conclusion remains that available evidence does not support an association between MMR vaccine and autism or bowel disease. Therefore the identification of at-risk groups is neither relevant nor feasible and the hypothesis that there is a connection does not hold.
	I am not sure how much time I have left, but I shall say a little about vaccinations in Japan. Japan does not use MMR vaccine, but that is because it cannot produce a vaccine with a mumps component that does not carry the risk of mumps meningitis. Japan uses single—
	The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at twelve minutes to Three o'clock.